- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The subsidies were necessary to keep our infrastructure building out fast enough to keep pace with other countries. That cat was necessary at the time and it being out of the bag is the way it is. I would be perfectly fine if we passed a different law stating that states and local governments cannot give exclusion rights to ISP cabling and any cabling that was subsidized needs to be leased out at cost +5% to competitors.
This could cause two things
1. new nonsubsidized cabling would be built ASAP
2. Other companies can enter into the forey long enough to build up capital to compete.
The real end result would be a surge in fiber optics lines at the last mile and lowered prices in about five to ten years.
In this situation, forcing the market to be the market would be the better choice I think, but title 2 is the less ballsy solution and governments can be cowards.
A business needs to have their own infrastructure that they built with their own money or else more than likely the entire industry must remain in the care of the state as the infrastructure is built with government finances in mind. The internet as it stands is not a marketable solution because the costs are too high and any potential free competition is non-existent.
Saying that, If you ask me the companies can not claim they own the cables because they did not build them with their own capital, so in my mind they have no leg to stand on to stop division of access to any cables they happen to be using.