There is an element of truth there oilphant. We do not have a true capitalized market system. If it were than companies would be in a hurry to offer the best service. But when was the last time that you saw this? I think what Lego was trying to say was that if there is an monopoly of services offered, that can drive one to create a new service. Case in point, the whole RIAA debacle, college kids didn’t like the type of service that they were getting so they started there p2p service. -- If there is any realistic deterrent to marriage, it's the fact that you can't afford divorce. -- Jack Nicholson
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA
This isn't about access to SERVICE. It's about access to CONTENT.
The people are arguing for is that a provider like Comcast shouldn't be able to block or limit access to sites run by Comcast's competitors.
People arguing for this protection basically are looking for a "must carry" provision that applies to these monopoly providers just as it does to video distribution.
IOW (as I stated in another post) you shouldn't have Comcast running say a streaming video site while bandwidth throttling a competitors streaming video site. Without an FCC mandate, this could easily happen to steer customers toward Comcast's revenue generating sites. [text was edited by author 2003-06-30 13:12:32]
·