Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice
That's funny, I'd much rather have my municipality or state or whatever providing some baseline internet to compete against the artificial oligopoly in my area. It's so odd that I can only choose from Comcast and AT&T when other places have Time Warner, Cox, Verizon, and more. But strangely, everywhere I live, I have had, at most, 2 real choices.
Yet, if my suburb wanted to create a competing ISP, they could not because of state regulations that make no sense unless you're trying to curb any competition through legal means. Look, if the government sucks at the internet, then what competition does Comcast have to fear? Unless they know they've been sandbagging for years and our internet in this country is pathetic but with no competition, there's no incentive to change.
I know that I, for one, would hate to pay 1/10th as much money for 10x the speed:
SI
|
The point is having big gov run your internet would be great until about a year later when you need faster internet. Who's paying for that upgrade? Not the government based on everything else they've ever run. The internet is different from a typical utility in that it requires constant innovation.
I'm not saying the existing duopoly is the answer, but thinking our governments would do a better job in the long run is laughable.
If they want to enter as a competing party, then sure, why not?