Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
Now that you've mentioned it the network in my area (Time Warner) was promised to the public as an infrastructure improvement The deal allowed these companies exclusive useage for a period of time to recoup their investment in cabling, switching - etc. I hope that answers your question about where I get my outlandish ideas about who is in charge of the "networks."  CableTV was being sold that way in Maryland too IIRC. It was seven or so years out here then it was leased out to the highest bidder. Bear with me Pat as the next paragraph outlines my understanding of these things work.
My view on the subject was focused on the broadcast spectrum being a public resource that was leased with conditions favorable to the citizens. Plenty of situations where a public resource that was getting overburdened needing a new set of rules imposed on the middlemen and the end user themselves. Water is a good example. |
I just see supply and demand in the article working the way it ought to work. If you do not like Time Warner you can have DISH, Directv, or better yet, books and music. You can't really want a government run cable service, or worse, government controlled communication networks?