Hi Jim,
>>
If one disagrees with the infrastructure argument (as some do, here) then it's case closed. We get what we get, and that's good enough. What's more, we get it in the same regulatory regime that has perpetuated itself since the time of Alexander Graham Bell.
If one disagrees with the regulatorium, we could at least dismantle the existing structure, and erect something more suitable to current realities. In itself, that would be a huge task.
If we buy the infrastructure argument, then we must find a way to simultaneously address the regulatory issues, the structural requirements, and the capital requirements for FTTH: massive tasks, each compounding the difficulty of the other.<<
Bruce Kushnick makes the point (on GC's list) that today's FCC has no concern about how we got to today's situation, nor if there are any remedies for the regulatorium, only an interest in how to spend what has been allocated.
He who controls the present, controls the past.
He who controls the past controls the future . . .
{some of the talent going into government should never have left their day jobs.}
petere |
