how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to baineschile
Re: Restricted Internet Service said by baineschile:A pro-consumer, mildly naive point of view. If I invest all this money in my infastructure, I should be able to generally dictate what goes on with it, and suspend people if they abuse it. If they dont like that, face the free market, where they can go to a different provider that may have more options for that consumer as far as bandwidth consumption. It's not as black and white as you want it to seem.
Public utilities get generous use of public infrastructure, which in many cases consists of rights to put equipment on private land via utility easements. Private land owners most times are forced to give up these easements and receive no compensation in return.
If a public utility such as a phone company were to negotiate with every land owner for access to their land to put up poles, put up equipment cabinets (fridge size VRADs for example) it could get expensive very quickly and could quite possibly be halted in its tracks by one unwilling land owner.
So yes, they spend their money, but the network isn't all on their property. They need to serve the public and that should include fair and open access to the network. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Well said. This same issue also applies to the argument "If the competitors want to provide service, they should have to build their own network from the ground up."
Impossible, since they don't get the utility access and right of ways and easements the existing players do. Even when they do get utility access, they can still be blocked by the incumbent saying "Sorry no room, sure we'll put in more equipment (poles, cabinets, whatever....) .... if you pay us huge amounts for it. Oh and we'll take forever doing it too.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
