Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
It's tempting to think of Verizon and Comcast as the only players if those are the only ones you can think of.
Firstly, most people do not chose between those two, and in certain locations - more all the time - there are more than two choices. For example, Philadelphia is developing its idea of providing 1MB wi-fi to everyone in the city limits. Their partner: Earthlink.
|
Many, if not most places, only have one broadband choice. In a major metropolitan area, Philadelphia, there are two choices. Furthermore, most other options still must use either the cable company or telephone company facilities. The other option that costs significantly more is satellite.
Earthlink is the exception - mesh networking. However the point here is about choices. The point is about how large IP providers can and probably are manipulating the market to self serving and competitively unfair advantages.
Let's take a look at that Earthlink example. Verizon and Comcast are so fearful of this mesh network as to make it illegal in any other Philadelphia town. By PA law (both Verizon and Comcast bought large numbers of PA Congressmen), only Philadelphia can install that Earthlink mesh network. A Philadelphia exemption is only because Philly had already started to install it.
Comcast and Verizon may be so manipulating the market (without consumer 'free market' influence) as to even get an Earthlink mesh network banned in all other PA venues. Is that a big IP provider with no undue influence on the market? Of course not. Just another example of why regulation of big IP providers may be (and most unfortunately) necessary. UT's Earthlink example only again demonstrates how big IP providers may be rigging the market at the expense of consumers - as that above Washington Post article and 'packet skewing' also suggests.