4 ms·
> Seems like a natural place to put "click here to contact your state/federal representative" How does that solve anything, though? Judging by the lack of com
by runeks 13y ago
> Seems like a natural place to put "click here to contact your state/federal representative"
How does that solve anything, though?
Judging by the lack of competition, it seems it's not profitable to compete.
Now, you could force Comcast to lease out its network capacity to competing companies, but this is really a shortsighted solution: the consequence is that potential competitors, who are contemplating establishing competing last-mile connectivity, cannot make a solid calculation to see if it would be profitable, because it might risk being forced to lease out the network capacity it establishes, thus it avoids doing so.
The problem here is simple: digging down cables is expensive. No amount of legislation is going to change that. The real solution is reducing the cost of the last mile connection. This might be possible through opening up legislation (removing barriers to entry), though. Like opening up more wireless frequencies, to carrier last mile traffic to consumers.
- hueving 13y ago>Judging by the lack of competition, it seems it's not profitable to compete. Nobody is allowed to compete. No company will be afforded the same benefits given to the first cable company that actually layed the physical infrastructure. Local governments give all kinds of benefits to the first company to bring in cable. They won't for the second. They will see it as wasteful duplication of infrastructure. Companies should not be granted monopolies on the last mile lines that they were granted all kinds of exceptions for. Telephone companies seem to get by without it, why are we tolerating it for cable companies, especially when they are competing with services offered online?