said by axus:
Selling LTE is *more* profitable. Getting cheap spectrum from the cable co in exchange for virtual monopoly is more profitable . Why have 5% margin when you can have 50%.
Groups like Frontier have tried to take over that 5% margin and haven't made it work.
Great, head to Kentucky and start stringing wire or fiber optics. See how many you can string up before a cop inquires about the new "service" you are going to offer.
The state of regulation regarding Internet in this country is a total mess. Unless and until we undo the national, state and local mindset that there can only be one cable and one telephone company serving a geographic area and until we deregulate so the barrier to entry isn't high, there will be no competition.
Did you ever visit the FCC site or the Kentucky regulatory site, and view the thousands of pages of regulations a cable to telephone company has to comply with?
If you assume control over a geographic area, ALL within that area must be covered, in Kentucky any new telephone service must be connected if it is within 750 feet of an existing telephone pole. How profitable will it be to run 5-7 poles to one house if they will pay the low $25 rates we read about in Hong Kong. What about maintenance of poles, or damage during natural events. Even pruning of trees can become expensive.
I'm a big supporter of competition. However many are not. They like the idea of competition, within the current regulatory framework.
Competition means there will be winners and losers, that some will have many Internet or phone choices, others will have none. For the most part, most on this forum, like all the mandates. They just don't like paying for them.--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.