On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote: > I am not sure what rocket you had to strap to this article to make the > leap from public policy that promotes broadband to socialism. But it > must have been large! Is NYC's water tunnel number 3 socialism or smart > public policy? What the rural electrification authority socialism or There is such thing as 'natural monopoly'. Gas lines, water lines, *phone lines and coax lines* are natural monopolies and does not make sense to have multiple companies competing with each other. Now, putting *content* over those lines is definitely *not* a natural monopoly. Broadband is definitely *not* a natural monopoly.
> smart public policy? YOUR ALREADY PAYING SUBSIDIES to the incumbent Oh, man, don't even start with rural electrification. That is *definitely* socialism. In fact, that was Lenin's #2 order right after the revolution. (Trust me, I spent 16 years in Soviet Union). > telcos and getting nothing for it. How about we stop talking about > socialism and start talking about replacing dumb public policy (like > paying incumbent telcos for broadband we don't get) with smart public > policy. If you happy with current arrangement good for you. I am glad > your broadband sucks and is expensive. Maybe you do something that > doesn't depend on ubiquitous global Internet connectivity priced > properly. But I doubt it. There's an obvious solution, 'structural separation' for ILECs - one entity owns the wire plant and COs, another entity owns everything inside COs. Entity #1 would sell access to wire plant to all comers. Of course, with current FCC this has a chance of snowball in hell of happening. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
