"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f2776b@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:16:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "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?
>
> No, because you can *drive* to another location.
>
> One of my friends who lives in the sticks can't get faster service at
> home by driving to town.

What if I don't have a license/car and am confined to a wheelchair?

The point is, the singular and particular circumstance of individuals and
local unavailability of competition do not make companies that happen to be
available monopolies. Why should Comcast be restricted in what they can
offer should they happen to be the only provider offering services to you?
If I'm a business in that situation, I would simply unavail my services to
you and be done with it instead of your singular circumstance have dictate
how I do business globally. Thus you would actually be worse off.

I am not seeing the point of legally forcing Comcast's hand and thus
effectively punishing them just because they provide services in areas where
nobody else is willing to. Sure, if they engage in illegal, monopolistic
practices, maybe to keep out the competition from your area, that's another
matter and should be dealt with existing anti-monopoly laws.

I guess it depends on whether you regard full access to the internet as a
right or not. To me, the baseline is no access at all. Anything above is a
bonus.

Post a reply to this message