Jay dedman wrote: >> I have no idea why you think this is outrageous. If one utility network can >> be >> installed, why not a reasonable number like, say, three or five? There >> really >> is no reason why neighbors can't receive service from different networks. >> You >> might have a good place to keep your ice cream during a blackout. > > so you want to only have 3 or 5? > why cant there be a 150? > any citizen should be allowed to build their network.
Indeed they should. But most markets tend to settle down to a small number of companies, although never just one. > I can also choose to not let people from your network talk to people > on my network. > fuck you. this is freedom. You should definitely be free to establish ridiculous company policies which will knock your company out of business. > This is why its outrageous. What's outrageous? That companies should be able to shoot themselves in the foot if they choose? Here's the situation: Broadband providers are now artificial monopolies, due to legislation. Now we bemoan the problems inherent in the nature of a monopoly, and have two solutions before us. We can remove their monopoly status. Or we can add still more legislative engineering on top, in order to attempt to create a monopoly that doesn't stink like a monopoly. Sort of like a fat-free oil, or calorie-free sweetener, we want to tamper with nature. (Then we find out saccharin makes people gain weight.) I don't think our economic and legislative skills are up to the task. The fact that the current crisis is of OUR OWN DOING indicates our inability to successfully tamper with markets. Make no mistake, economy is like ecology. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whose principles were discovered and researched by scientists. It is not a machine designed by a team of engineers. I find something very suburban in this denial of nature.
