openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: First place Are you talking about the USF slush fund?
I'm with you on the ROI for rolling out new infrastructure. That's why I question why some people expect companies that make that investment to open their lines to competitors when the cost to deploy and support the infrastructure is so large in the first place.
You said it earlier, but there is no easy answer for this. Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will be shared amongst multiple competitors. Other options have less popularity, so the question becomes, do we need additional providers in the market, or are we currently heading in the right direction? | |
|
 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| Re: First place said by openbox9  :Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will be shared amongst multiple competitors. This is a ridiculous assertion. That is like saying that you want every trucking company to build their own roads for exclusively transporting their goods.
Perhaps you meant to say this:
Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will NOT be shared amongst multiple competitors.
As other posters have pointed out, there is only so much ROW for these things...
--
A is A | |
|
 | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: First place Ok, let me rephrase. I'm all for a common infrastructure for any and all providers to provide service, as long as it can be paid for without additional tax dollars. Is that better? | |
|
| | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: First place You didn't like my first answer, so I attempted to give you a more "politically correct" one  | |
|
|
|
|
