how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to KrK
Re: Will the data show regulation the way to go? A mostly un-regulated pseudo monopoly (or duopoly) that acts in their best interests only and deliberately creates high barriers to viable competition AND lax oversight and control.
I agree that is, in short, what exists (though the situation is murkier in certain areas). But I wouldn't call it "the" third option, it is "a" third option as there are many other options on the table.
My feeling is that the best of those other options is a system in which the federal government ....
1. plans an initiative a la Kennedy (we will put a man on the moon, it will be done by X) and then
2. lays down incentives (in the form of taxes, special exemptions, free cat food, whatever did the trick in other countries) for private companies to spread broadband to places with less profitability (and for those incentives to kick in when the jobs done) in partnership with the local municipalities,
3. encourage local governments to facilitate their own broadband networks (by giving credits to local utilities who do so) with some legislation guiding the policy for such a network (i.e. what circumstances need to be present for it be allowed [perhaps 1 or less current ISPs serving in any one part of town with X speeds)] either solo (a la Lafayette) or in partnership with a private provider (a la Philly),
4. pass laws ensuring that state regulators do not have the power to wholesale stop local governments from providing broadband or partnering with third partners to provide broadband (leaving the power to ban broadband in a particular region solely up to the local government and/or federal government),
5. and last, but not least, open the lines to service provider competition.
As with other utility systems, the regional nature of broadband means that special emphasis must be put on local cooperation. Other countries have managed that without centralizing the whole thing. I think we can, too. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Now that's a great reply.
I really can't add much to that at all. I've always believed the best policy would be have a private company that builds out the network, repairs it, upgrades it, and expands it, and charges people for access to the network, but they DO NOT provide any services themselves. IE they are an infrastructure company, and that is their job, and their income.
They charge all users equally, and allow the companies to choose what services/packages/entertainment they want to provide over the network, and consumers can pick and choose what services and packages they would wish to buy.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
