Eventually, open access will be defeated in the courts or through legislation. Aside from my distaste for such concepts (regulating use of private property for others at a discounted price - similar to rent control), it will bring about competing services only over the short run, stagnate investment in cable/telephone equipment and eventually create higher prices for consumers. It happened with the telephone companies until the FCC removed some of the open access requirements. It took 5 years for SBC to finally think about offering high speed internet via DSL in Delavan, WI - before then they had to compete with other operators (who eventually went bankrupt) who were offered services over their equipment at deeply discounted prices. I think that the only CLECs and DSL providers that survive will be those that have a stake in the capital investments required by cable and telephone companies. Until that happens, the prices are only subsidized by lack of services offered to the consumers. The comment in Court hears arguments in FCC cable internet case:
But an attorney for the state of California, which is challenging the FCC's decision, said that customers in California and Vermont "will be at the mercy of an unregulated cable monopoly" due to the lack of competition.Customers are only at the mercy of someone if they are forced (through state regulated monopolies) to use a given provider's services. The best way to promote competition is to let a given provider to price themselves out of existence - or make their prices so high that competitors have a financial reason to invest in that market. Government involvement = stagnation, NOT progress.
