3 ms·
I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an o
by gnoway 12y ago
I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid.
The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that I had more choices for service when it was done w/ DSL.
- pyre 12y agoThe latter makes sense for DSL, but most of the cable monopolies are not government-granted at the Federal level. Some localities have a cable monopoly, but the local government is responsible for that. Yes, the cable companies have gotten government hand-outs to build out infrastructure, but teasing apart which of that was public and private money (and therefore which would be 'fair' to force open) would be a nightmare.
- eggnet 12y agoMany things that are worth doing are difficult. This is one of them.
- pyre 12y agoMy point was mostly that the argument for doing so w/ DSL is more cut-and-dry in that most/all of the infrastructure was laid under a nation-wide government-granted monopoly. The Federal government weighing in on the matter makes sense.
- eggnet 12y agoI agree with you except where you imply that the Federal government weighing in on cable doesn't make sense.