|
|
|
|
|
|
by xGrill
3341 days ago
|
|
|
I think #1 and #2 wouldn't necessarily increase competition as much as limit the governments ability to further constrain it. Wouldn't #3 limit the speed and growth to whatever the city can afford to provide? And truly the only ISP is the local government at that point since they own everything. |
|
|
#3: The government would only own the poles and towers. ISPs are free to pay a fee to use said poles and towers to hang their cables/wires/antennaes. Since these items would no longer be owned by ISPs, they would not be unable to block smaller startups from trying to get into the neighborhood.
Imagine, for a moment, a landscape in which the roads in our country were owned by FedEx and UPS (or even Amazon) rather than the government. Then, imagine that they'd struck deals to stay out of each others way; moreover, imagine that they decided to divide up the cities amongst themselves (LA roads are owned by FedEx, SF roads are owned by UPS, etc). They would be able to block smaller delivery companies from delivering around the country. The copy shop in the next town over would be unable to deliver copy paper to your office directly. They would have to either go through one of the larger delivery companies or not deliver at all due to being blocked. Well, this is what's happening with current ISPs.
I currently have only Comcast/Xfinity in my neighborhood because Comcast owns all of the telephone poles (which are using public land for free), and in my last neighborhood, my only choice was AT&T/DirectTV. There is no chance for anyone new to come into the market where I live be cause the ISPs own the basics. It's sad really.