Jay, from your newsclip, and from other sources in the recent past,
"Consumers wanting to use another ISP, such as AOL, MSN or others, would be forced to pay extra. King County wants the company to provide its high-speed lines without forcing the consumer to pay for the company's ISP."
Don't the principlas here (T, TCI AOL NSN etc) have it backwards?
Why should the subs take it in the neck and pay more? Shouldn't the additional costs be amortized over AOL's revenues, or from whomever's, as a means of fair contribution to the buildout and upgrade expenses? There should be, IMO, a viable means of reconciling these cost allocations, although I'm not comfortable with the potential of this coming to fruition purely from an architectural standpoint... see my other posts on this, both here in ATHM, and in the Last Mile thread.
Where does T and AOL get off automatically assigning the additional costs "directly" to the end users? Curious, how even these opposing entities default to putting it to the end users, without attempting to reconcile some straightforward plant investment details. Just my two packets...
Regards, Frank Coluccio
|
