Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
> From: Ben Eisenbraun [mailto:bene at klatsch.org] > > The only reason network providers build network to unprofitable areas, i.e. > low-density, rural areas, is because regulations force them to. It has > absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much they are charging the > high-density, profitable areas. Agreed, but, if the business is more profitable across all types of users and areas, then there are more profitable regions and the unprofitable areas are smaller. So it makes financial sense to expand more into those areas that otherwise would have been unprofitable. So, can you enforce LLU only in the profitable areas, and not in the more rural areas? Of course there's nothing theoretically preventing the rules from being written that way, but it would be interesting to see the state legislature pass a rule saying that Arlington residents follow this rule, while Lincoln residents have a different one. Certainly not impossible - and could be handled by more localized legislation or zoning etc etc. Amongst the arguments against net neutrality, in favor of deregulation, is that when you allow the ISP's to be more profitable, they expand more. They provide more services to more people. Can you enforce net neutrality only in the city, and don't give it to the country folk?
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |