4 ms·
Because in the US, they own the loops, in the UK they'd get access to them. I think a factor in making this easier in Europe is that all phone lines were put i
by mseebach 15y ago
Because in the US, they own the loops, in the UK they'd get access to them.
I think a factor in making this easier in Europe is that all phone lines were put in by entirely government owned and operated enterprises, and it can't be argued that the public doesn't own them. In the US, if I'm not mistaken, most of the phone companies were and are at least somewhat private entities that invested private money in putting in the lines. Although often protected by exclusivity etc. this makes the "public owns it" argument much more murky.
- rmc 15y agoa factor in making this easier in Europe is that all phone lines were put in by entirely government owned and operated enterprises, and it can't be argued that the public doesn't own them Depends. When Ireland privatized it's state owned teleco, it included all the wires going all over the country.
- estel 15y agoYes, but because the original investment was from the public purse, there's still a strong argument that, even if not legally, the public might have a right to some sense of entitlement.
- chopsueyar 15y agoAll the citizens of Ireland voted to privatize the people owned telco and all its infrastructure?
- rmc 15y agoNo, the government did it. Member of the public were encouraged to buy shares and invest in share trading. IIRC many lost money.
- rapala 15y agoAt least here in Finland the lines were put in by a government owned company. Which was then privatized and later sold to Sweden. That private company now truly owns the lines, and the government is scratching it's head because it has passed a law that broadband connection is a "universal right", and it realized that it needs the lines for crises time communications.
- masklinn 15y ago> In the US, if I'm not mistaken, most of the phone companies were and are at least somewhat private entities that invested private money in putting in the lines Most of the phone companies were Ma Bell, which had a government-sanctioned natural monopoly from 1936 to its breakup in 1984.
- w1ntermute 15y ago> Most of the phone companies were Ma Bell, which had a government-sanctioned natural monopoly from 1936 to its breakup in 1984. If it was natural, why was a government sanction necessary?
- masklinn 15y agoIn order to try and regulate it, the federal sanction put Bell under purview of the FCC, so the FCC could handle Bell directly instead of having to go through the Justice Department every time. While it ultimately failed, there was a method to the madness.
- russell 15y agoWhy government regulation? To prevent price gouging, favoritism to particular customers, killing off rivals. Prior to the Carterphone Decision you could not attach any third party equipment to the phone lines, including phones and modems. There was a huge battle for MCI to attach their long distance phone lines to the AT&T system. Common carrier status was invented to allow people to use their phones as they wish. When I was a child coast to coast phone calss were several dollars a minute. Now unlimited long distance is the price of a single call of the past. (I realize that I answered the question "Why is regulation necessary?", but it goes along with the sanction.)
- wtallis 15y agoThe concept of common carrier status had been around for a very long time when it was first used to apply to telecommunication services. These days, phone companies and many kinds of physical transport services are common carriers, while ISPs have only the benefits of common carrier status, and none of the limitations.