Douglas Garstang wrote: >>> Stephen Bosch wrote: >> In Canada, most of the phone systems were government-owned. It was a >> good system, at least from the point of view of reliability. I don't >> miss the surly (and often slow) service, but it's arguable whether >> today's service -- in which everyone smiles nice and *pretends* to > serve >> you while ignoring you completely -- is any better. At least the > bloody >> stuff worked. >> >> Communications infrastructure is a strategic, national asset, and only >> really useful if it goes everywhere, even to the unprofitable pockets >> like Podunk Corners, North Dakota. People forget this. In a totally > free >> marketplace, Podunk Corners waits years for service and gets tin cans >> and string when it finally arrives. > > I disagree. There is more competition in smaller towns and rural areas. > It isn't cost effective for the bigger carriers to move in, so the small > ones do. They get state/federal subsidies. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's exactly my point. I said: "In a totally free marketplace, Podunk Corners waits years for service..." A subsidized marketplace is not a free marketplace. Whether you do it with regulation and sanctioned monopoly or with subsidy, that is still a market intervention. I can't see any other way that service to sparsely populated areas would be financially viable. > I'll bet you there's more > ISP's, and CLEC's per square inch in Montana than there is in the bay > area. Oh, I believe you. But ultimately -- what do you mean by competition? Who owns the cable plant? I have a hard time believing that there are any areas in Montana with redundant last-mile infrastructure. -Stephen- _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users