said by NOVA_Guy:To an extent, this makes sense. Why should an ISP provide service to an area if they feel it's not profitable for them to do so? Would you also expect Starbucks to open a coffee shop next door to you simply because you want it, and ignore the ROI of doing so? ISPs are
businesses after all, and as such have a responsibility to their owners/shareholders of engaging in profitable activity. Nobody has a
right to broadband.
That being said, I do not support the status quo of little to no government oversight, even less competition, and anti-consumer practices engaged in by the big guys (like Time Warner, Comcast, etc.). As long as the broadband service sector remains segmented to the extent that it offers an oligopolistic (at best) choice to consumers, some regulation is warranted-- especially when some ISPs engage in anticompetitive activities solely designed to allow them to to prevent any entry into their marketplace.
It should be the function of government to facilitate and foster the growth of competition in the marketplace to the greatest extent feasible. This isn't happening in the vast majority of places when it comes to broadband.
·
·
·
I looked at property in a subdivision in Astatula, Florida about a year ago. It appeared that the subdivision was already wired for cable and telephone service. I contacted Embarq and Florida Cable to find out why the existing houses in the neighborhood did not have Cable or DSL service available, even though the neighborhood was already wired for same. It appears that there was a disagreement with the developer regarding payment for hooking up of Cable. Embarq stated that they did not have a DSLAM close enough to provide DSL service and did not intend to install one until there were more potential DSL Subscribers. The Florida Cable's fiber passed a location prepared for the installation of a node. Florida Cable just did not install it. Telephone and coaxial cable was already buried throughout the subdivision. Voice Telecommunications service was available. Both companies took the position that the developer did not pay for the installation and there were not enough customers to justify delivering broadband to the subdivision. It appears that even if a subdivision is wired for broadband the ISP's will not install service unless it is profitable. 