This is similar to the way cable companies are run. Very few companies get the right to place the necessary components to supply television to people. without innovation, we start heading to a world run by monopolies that aren’t considered monopolies. and since the government makes their money this way, i don’t see it changing anytime soon.

I agree with #2 : The poles in the alley are not there just for looks! They should utilize that instead of installing their stuff in people yards. If they install on private property, they ought to pay rent to the owners and if they install somewhere other than the poles, they should ‘pay the town-city to make up for the ugly boxes on every other corner.

The net neutrality act is more vital than additional competition (though more competition always helps).
If I had four more Verizons or Comcasts in my area, they’d simply all agree to the a lot of the same habits in order for the better interest of them all.
They’d all be fighting equally to throttle certain types of traffic and punish “heavy users” like myself.
Our capitalist system isn’t just a blind free-for-all. Competitors strike deals with each other all the time to control their market for the better of them all.
And I think that’s all we’d have with increased competition and no net neutrality.
Different sign up deals, different speed promises. Standard throttling and heavy user punishment.

Sorry, but this is not an assumption. Where I live Verizon controls/owns all the COs. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the RBOCs to allow competing companies to purchase space and access to fiber and copper going to customers. But it’s a big joke. Most competitors still find it extremely difficult to get into the COs and the fines the RBOCs like Verizon have to pay are small compared to the money they would lose if they complied with the law, not to mention the fact that they have so many Congressmen and FCC people in their pockets. I live within 1/2 mile from the CO I get phone service from, Verizon is now moving on to FIOS, but I still can’t get even DSL, and probably never will. Since I live in a more rural area, the density does not justify to Verizon the cost of install the needed equipment to supply DSL or FIOS, even though they get money every year from the FCC to compensate for just this type of cost, the cost of supplying services to rural areas. So my only option is comcast cable, and they know it. For just Internet access I am paying $57.95/month. Although I live in a more rural area, I’m not talking about everyone having 10 acres or more, most people have one or two acres, mixed with people who have from 10 to 20 acres. There are plently of homes to make it worth someones investment to install the equipment, but first they have to get into the COs, and Verizon makes sure that doesn’t happen.

Great article.

…branch out and let people use thier lines, like the small telephone companies are allowed to use the lines that ‘belong’ to SBC-AT&T? They’re already there and the smaller businesses ensure that we can choose among many providers who have varying rates and services, with SBC-AT&T being at the top of the cost pole.

For instance, cable in my city runs along the same poles that electric does. Those poles and land belong to the City, i.e. the residents of the city. Right now, to have cable internet, I have to purchase cable television also, which is crap as it doubles my bill for something I don’t want and don’t use. But the only real alternative is the DSL that crappy in this town and the wireless that’s even worse.

What not one of you seems to understand is that THERE ARE NO EXCLUSIVE CABLE FRANCHISES. Wire line providers all have to use the municipal right-of-way. Each local government has the obligation to make sure that anyone who wants to use the ROW is willing to compete on a level playing field and can prove that he/she has the financial resources necessary to protect the municipality and its residents from any damage or harm they may cause. Be able and willing to do so and even you can get a local cable franchise. There will NEVER be multiple direct competitors in a market. It costs too much to build plant and there aren’t enough customers per mile in any area to make it financially feasible to have more than two providers in an area. Most areas can’t support two wireline cable-type competitors. Many municipalities have granted multiple local cable franchises – and the 2nd company into the market couldn’t make it financially. The so-called “pro-competition” (deregulation) legislation passed in some states has only strengthened the hold of the incumbent provider. In North Carolina more than 100 state franchises have been issued during the past year… ALL to the incumbent local franchise holder. NO competitors have come into the market. Most of you remind me of the fable about the blind men and the elephant. If you’re not familiar with the story – look it up.