3 ms·

> People in more expensive neighborhoods aren't willing to pay more just because the city requires build-out to poor neighborhoods. They may very well be in s

> People in more expensive neighborhoods aren't willing to pay more just because the city requires build-out to poor neighborhoods. They may very well be in some cities/towns; this isn't fundamentally different from them paying more in taxes to subsidize other services that are used equally by all residents. There's so much regional variability on this that it makes more sense for the FCC to allow cities and towns the right to determine this for themselves. If constituents are unhappy with the results, they can raise the issue at a town hall or with the city council, which is a far lower bar than trying to change FCC policy.

rhino369 12y ago
The problem is they already have cable internet incumbents who can price below the new fiber with you make the fiber more expensive. And the fiber companies know this and do the math. This sort of subsidy for poor areas worked when there as a telephone monopoly. Well there isn't a monopoly anymore so you can't just make customer eat your price no matter what.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  It seems like a duopoly is about the worst possible market you can have. Monopolies basically have to be regulated (or government operated, or broken up), but at least monopolies have economics of scale and can justify research spending like Bell Labs. A duopoly doesn't give you any kind of vigorous competition but it still doubles all the fixed costs by requiring two networks to be built and maintained and then gives each provider a disincentive to invest in anything its competitor could benefit from.