said by NewMariner :

I agree with Verizon....Why should they have to subsidize a competitor? If the other ISPS want to compete, then build your own network! Its as simple as that...

said by Jodokast96 :

Easier said than done my friend.

said by Jodokast96 :

Somehow the electric companies made it work.

said by Jodokast96 :

No, but that way is more doable than everyone building their own. You know it and I know it, if another competitor came in and tried to build their own network using a duplicate infrastructure, they'd almost certainly not get approval. Somewhere you've got to find a middle ground, and it leans towards line sharing. The third parties aren't getting a free ride here, they still have to pay to even get in. Somehow the electric companies made it work.

said by Jodokast96 :

So if 15 competitors each came in to build their, where the hell to you expect them to build it? Poles 5 deep from the street? Places with underground utlities would be real fun to watch getting deployed too. Yeah, just what anyone wants, 15 different companies coming in and tearing my street. Not to mention the fact of whether the PUCs would even let them. Easier said than done my friend.

said by Jodokast96 :

Keep thinking that the law would, in reality, allow them to get built, and I'll sell you my shiny new bridge.

said by wifi4milez :

[
All companies (new, existing, future, etc.) are guaranteed access to public ROW by law. Thats not the issue, as any company is legally allowed to build a network. The issue usually comes down to cost; and do the new ISP's have the money needed to do so. We have seen time and time again that companies who chose to actually build their own infrastructure have done quite well, so it is very doable.

said by wifi4milez :

We have seen time and time again that companies who chose to actually build their own infrastructure have done quite well, so it is very doable.

said by sporkme :

Name a residential ISP that's turning a profit doing this.

RCN? Yeah, right.

Unless of course you're being sane and calling Covad's huge investment in co-locating DSLAMs in COs "infrastructure", but I doubt it.

said by Jodokast96 :

Yeah, because wireless providers abound offering 20-50mbps.

said by Jodokast96 :

The point is, it's here now, and future deployments will be even faster. If you can't offer it, you won't last very long. The slowest cable offerings already surpass it, and while it's the norm for DSL, it probably doesn't have much more than a few years left except in rural areas. Being deployed is not the same as competition. That's like saying dial up is competing with cable. Not happening.

said by Jodokast96 :

Outside of rural areas, almost anybody with a cable connection sees 20mbps+ connections now via PowerBoost, and it sells.

said by Jodokast96 :

DSL is dying in most places, and anything offering similar speeds won't last long either. Hell, why do you think nobody want's to touch BPL? Because it has no future. If the money was in 2-4mb connections, neither the cablecos nor Verizon would be rushing to get FIOS and DOCIS 3 out there.

said by Jodokast96 :

Yeah, because wireless providers abound offering 20-50mbps.

said by wifi4milez :

I will admit that my first hand experience is limited to the business market only. Although I realize there are differences, I can point to a number of companies who have been quite successful in that space by building their own infrastructure. I would say the biggest success story in the residential market would be cable. They came into a "one party market" and have no eclipsed the telcos in many areas. There are also many smaller wireless ISP's (both 802.11x and Wimax) who provide service to residential users.