What is best for the customer?
Do you think it is best for Portland not to have BB cable? Will that speed up deployment of DSL in that area?
Despite what you think of T they have made it clear that they will not deploy cable without their agreements in tact. I'm not scared of "open access", I don't think it would hurt @HOME in the long run, but for now T is and does.
So, what is best for the consumer right now, is to give T its agreement until 2002. They will roll out cable anywhere possible. The phone companies will be forced to compete with DSL. The sat. co's will have to work hard to get theirs going. By 2002, the customer has 3 strong choices for broadband.
Do you honestly think DSL would be where it is today, if Cable BB was not present?
I think you miss the point of the argument. Its "hands-off" the internet. That means letting it develop un touched. Part of that development so far has included a massive infrastructure upgrade to offer consumers a very good internet product, with an exclusive agreement until the year 2002 with @HOME.
If Open Net, or others like it did not exist, we would not be having this discussion. Thus the talk of "regulation" the need for the FCC to clarify its stance, the need for companies to choose up sides (and don't for one second think any company is doing this for altruistic reasons) has come from the very people who claim that they are working in the best interest of the consumer.
Another question: Do you seriously want Joe Alderman from Nantucket to have to power to alter the state of the internet and its infrastructure or would you rather let the consumer and their money decide?
You seem to be having a lot of conceptual problems lately.
What is it about Broadband that does this? It is just another product. But a strong product, of which I'm sure one day AOL will be a part of.
Jay |
