| Script is always the same Regulate cable= bad
Regulate telco= good
If AT&T and Comcast took Martin out to dinner I imagine the headline would be that AT&T is buying Martin while Comcast is just trying to befriend him. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Actually, the headline would probably read, AT&T and Martin went to dinner and Comcast was forced to pay for the meal while standing in the rain on the street. |
|
|
|
 halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:Regulate cable= bad Regulate telco= good Telco regulation for pots made sense at one time. Even the USF started out on the right track. But money and power corrupt all.
Regulation is a tricky thing to get right. Take Verizon. Builds a new network and is mostly unregulated. Makes sense for now.
If they were forced to do open access they would not invest in the network. No franchise agreements and they move into towns quickly.
The downside, no build out requirements so not everyone gets it. CLECS are locked out, you take what verizon offers. Towns loose public access channels.
Everything is a trade-off. With these kind of natural monopolies we have limited choices:
No regulation, the customer is at the mercy of the corporations, most of which choose their own interests over the good of the customer or the state.
More regulation, adds costs and the corporations have no incentive to roll out new technology so they settle back into their fat government regulated world and abuse the customer with as many fees and as limited service as they can get away with.
Unless the FCC, PUCs and other regulators work for both the good of the customer and corporation, one side or the other comes out the looser, and the funny thing is when the corporations loose, in the end the customer always looses too.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
1 edit | Yep-and they raise the rates early and often! Just like Verizon did the other day..... |
|
