http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21195176 en Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:07:43 EDT Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:07:43 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21196264 anon : Competition is already allowed in most states, towns, cities, and counties.

The problem is, there already exists the incumbents.

So who is going to spend their money to come in, build CO's and headends of their own, run their own new fiber and copper infrastructure, just to get a handful of the customers that are willing to switch?

So in a couple of years, they'll find it unprofitable, and sell off their assets to the incumbent that wants it.

There is a reason that it usually comes down to just 2 providers in any given area. And that reason is money.

If there is no money to be made by coming in as the 3rd provider. Why would anyone do it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21196264 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:21:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21195176 pandora : I agree with you! It is time to stop the artificial monopoly cable and phone companies have enjoyed. We are now in a media and internet age, a town or city should have as many providers as can find profit running cable. Within the limits of the cable infrastructure to support it.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21195176 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:13:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21193544 trebzon : It is all poppycock. Competition in this area is a myth. We need to eliminate franchises and allow and encourage multiple threads of service. I.E. Charter and Comcast in one town. Verizon and AT&T in one town. The current system is garbage and I resent my lack of choices or how little my voice or vote with my pocketbook matters.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21193544 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:16:30 EDT