Internet deregulation

Quote:

Telecommunications and cable companies argue that they provide access, through infrastructure they own and maintain, and therefore should be able to set rates according to what the market will bear. According to their argument, tiered access would fuel greater investment in expanding capacity and improving service.

If they were able to set whatever prices they wanted, we'd all be paying $200/month for cable services instead of the government setting prices for the monopolies they allowed to grow.

If the telecommunications companies want to deregulate everything, whatever. But that means you lose your ability to hold a monopoly over everything, that's the deal. If Comcast can do whatever the fuck they want to me, then I get to choose someone other than Comcast for the same type of services.

How ya doing, buddy?

The cable companies who provide Internet services have zero competetors to that particular product as designed by the government to allow them to be run as other utilities, so Watts's example doesn't work. You might argue that ISP's should be forced to charge less as they are not allowed to have a competetor and it is not necessary for them to maintain the Internet structure beyond the end points. The telcoms went and did that by choice and now are whining about bad decisions they made in the tech bubble.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

Not entirely true. The cable companies are required by law to share the infrastructure set up. While paying dues and considerations to the local government. This make's the issue of royalties in instances like these such a touchy issue. When a company like Verizon pays a sizable share of said infrastructure, they (Verizon) wants the right to "tax" Microsoft, or any other company that uses said infrastructure. Which had no part in the construction or maintence of it. Microsoft doesn't want to cough up the dough.

My point, though, is that companies and users have no option but to use that infrastructure. A user wanting DSL does not have an option to choose anything but Verizon to obtain information/products/etc. from Microsoft. Thus, Verizon should not be given free reign to set prices how they see fit. A lot of what we are talking about here is a free market, where companies are free to peddle their services in any way they see fit. However, when government-imposed monopolies enter the equation, the idea of such a system goes right out the window. Verizon's contract is to provide a government service to citizens, not unlike how I am forced to use Tucson Water for the plumbing in my home.

The telcoms that set up these lines knew what they were getting into. Now that everything is in place and they find their profitability ideas aren't as fruitful as they thought, they essentially want to hold a ransom for good services that they were given government assistance to set up and own monopolies on initally.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.