approval from:
KrK 
| Who really paid for the network The real problem is scarce resources, bandwidth for wireless, rights of way and telephone poles for fixed broadband. Providing bandwidth for 5 different carriers is an inefficient model. These resources must be shared to open up competition. The network can still be owned by private enterprise.
Now some will complain that the companies that own these pipes built them by investing and risking their profits. A little research will prove this not to be true. The telcos built their infrastructure as monopolies before the AT&T breakup. In the 1990’s they promised to build a 45mb nationwide network for $200 billion in tax breaks. There is no 45mb network and the tax breaks continue. The cable companies were given 30 years of exclusive rights with no competition to build their networks. So who really took the risk and paid for these networks? The consumer.
So what’s the answer - separate the infrastructure owner from the internet service provider. Before the telcos started providing internet service there were numerous isp’s in every city providing dialup service. Now there are only two providers the telephone company and the cable company. Net neutrality wasn’t a problem then because you could change internet providers at any time. Having so many isp’s allowed different models to be tested. Some charged by the minute others had flat rates. Some even tried the free model paid for by advertising. This competition is gone now replaced by a duopoly that has a vested interest in protecting their outdated technologies.
When I originally saw the Harvard report I thought there was a ray of hope but now I don’t believe anything will change, with an uninformed public and the enormous lobbying efforts of the cable and phone companies the pressure for change just isn’t there. |
