 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to sonicmerlin
Re: This is actually really interesting You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? |
|
 zitch
join:2002-07-08
Lafayette, LA | How can you make it possible to have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Or are you suggesting we should just have multiple pipes/electrical lines running everywhere just so people have "choice"?
There's a good reason these are considered utilities and are run by regulated monopolies in an area. But we only have a physical limitation when it comes to broadband access. It is very possible to have multiple ISPs serve a neighborhood, even if there's only one physical line going to each house.
Let's put it this way: Do you have a choice of who builds and maintains the roads to your home? At the same time, are you limited to which company you can purchase vehicles to drive on this road?
Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. You monopolize the physical aspects of broadband access out of necessity, yet still allow consumer choice and fair competition for internet access. This is not possible to do with the current utilites (electricity, water, and gas). |
|
| said by zitch:Basically, treat the physical lines to each home as a utility; either the municipality or a regulated monopoly company will build and maintain these lines. Heck, treat the whole system as a giant local network, if you must. Then let users pick whatever company to be their "gateway" to the Internet. I agree. We need a different model, where the "last mile" of infrastructure is treated like water, sewer, gas, electric. A city service, taxpayer-subsidized co-op, private company (like most gas and electric companies). Any of which governed by the state's corporation commission as a public utility to regulate expenses and rates.
Residents could then interconnect to a multitude of competing ISPs offering anything from bare-bones connectivity to teevee and telephone.
That still doesn't address how wireless service providers should be better regulated to operate in the public interest. They obtain a monopoly on finite public resources (airwaves). There's no way to demarcate access to that public resource like a city's "last mile." I think wireless providers should be treated as a public utility. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:You havent addressed the most important questions I allured to though. Do you have a choice when it comes to electricity, gas, or water? Many PA residents now have a choice in electricity and natural gas suppliers (but not the owner of the utility wires or gas lines) and there is always bottled water. |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to zitch
primary carrier in an area but power/gas being charged by a second company. My electrical bill does NOT go to the provider in the area, so yes this is possible without having tons of lines going everywhere. |
|
