| >The cable companies are a natural monopoly, just like electricity providers et al. It doesn't make sense for two companies to lay two separate sets of cable in the ground. With all due-respect, electricity companies haven't had to lay separate lines in the states since FERC Order Number 888[0,1] in 1996 I think it was and the EPA 2005[2]. The entire premise has been defunct for over a decade now. From what I understand, if a line falls under the common carrier utility definition, the owner of the line cannot refuse access to other providers and can only charge a non-discriminatory tax/leasing-fee for use of the line. I think that this is precisely why we see the back and forth about the common carrier definition with the different regimes of the FTC regarding ISPs and cable providers. The issue - in the case of the cable companies/ISP providers - isn't regulation of the monopoly but the classification of their business and how the law then affects them. If they do not fall under common carrier utility rules, then the monopoly will always remain because even breaking them up - such as in the case of Ma-Bell - still ensure monopolies in those more localised coverage areas. Back to the electricity providers: If the argument of utility providers having to lay lines had any merit, you'd still see telephone poles with hundreds of lines on them - originating from both operating and now-defunct providers (the worst be from the defunct providers because there's no maintenance on them) but we don't see this in the states (as far as I'm aware) today, yeah? [0] - https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w.... [1] - https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/order888.as... [2] - https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/042006/M-1.pdf |