|reply to pnh102 |
said by pnh102:Yes, I think many would support that. said by amigo_boy:
Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?
Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?
But, we have to be clear. It's not a "free market" solution. We're giving a monopoly to a business. We would just go further and recognize it is a monopoly and control its capital expenditures to ensure they serve society's interests, review its operating expenses to ensure they aren't excessive, and set rates so an appropriate "profit" is made.
Similar to society funding and building the infrastructure (and having trouble repaying bonds), this heavily socialized business could have the same problem and raise rates.
We're not talking about something vastly different. With a public utility, we just give the illusion that it's a business and we kept government small. In reality, society became a controlling partner with business.
But, I think that would address most of what people are clamoring for.