Richard H. Hall wrote: > About network neutrality and competition. First, of course, if everyone has > a fair playing field within the network (like a phone call from me to you, > gets the same priority as a phone call from one AT&T executive to another), > then competition will be increased, sine it allows innovators and start ups > with lots of ideas and little money to compete and, in fact, we've seen this > a lot already afforded by the web. Second, competition was SEVERELY > curtailed when some court somewhere ruled that cable, and then dsl companies > do not have to abide by common carriage laws when it comes to the internet. > So, with phone lines, the companies who built the lines have to share the > lines with other phone companies (they get a lot of tax breaks for building > them and they are the default carrier, so it's still a good deal for them). > Makes sense, of course, since we don't want every phone company building > lines through public right aways and such.
It doesn't make very much sense to me. There's plenty more room in the ground for wire, more space for newfangled telephone poles carrying broadband, and more radio spectrum. Using this seems a lot more fair to me than to have the first company pay for all the infrastructure and then forcing them to turn it over to a flock of free-riding competitors. Or for the first company to foist the infrastructure bill on the overburdened taxpayer.
