4 ms·
When FairPoint doesn't perform its obligations under contract, that's presumably something for the New Hampshire authorities to pursue, as they were the other p
by tygorius 16y ago
When FairPoint doesn't perform its obligations under contract, that's presumably something for the New Hampshire authorities to pursue, as they were the other party in the contract. How is that a federal responsibility?
since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas
Again, is that really a problem the FCC should address? It seems you're extending the idea of net neutrality from regulating existing networks to guaranteeing network access for all.
edit: typo
- sp332 16y agoThe FCC already makes sure that absolutely everyone who can have access to a phone line does have access to a phone line. They've more recently announced their intention to extend this mandate to broadband internet access. The reason the feds are getting involved is because the states want them to. Anyway, the FP deal involved Maine, New Hampsire and Vermont. Vermont is considering banning FP from the state, Maine and NH have launched investigations already, and since Verizon investors lost $1B due to lies FP told, I think the feds should be getting involved on several levels. This is a bigger deal than just FP vs NH, and it fits right in with what the FCC is already moving toward.