"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f211c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...

> >> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
> >> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
> >> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
> >> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
> >> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

> > So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> > little alternative in your locality?

> Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required
> to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly,

That's a very narrow (ego-centric) definition of monopoly on your part. The
only fast-food restaurant within about 75m of my house is Subway. Does that
make them a monopoly?

Post a reply to this message