🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:15:18 GMT, Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7a8f78.n0g.ese002@spica.exile.org>, ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:42:16 GMT, Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com> wrote:
>>>So, it's OK for AT&T to own the pipe and require you to subscribe to their 
>>>ISP, but it *isn't* OK for SBC to own *it's* pipe while letting you choose 
>>>your own ISP?
>>
>>The big factor is practicality.  How are you supposed to provide access
>>to multiple ISP's with a cable modem architecture?
>
>That's a good question -- I have no idea.  But telco complaints about 
>"practicality" have never stopped the FCC from imposing regulatory 
>requirements on the them.

That's because the practicality complaints lack merit.  The evidence is
in existing deployment.  To the best of my knowledge, there are no 
multiple provider cable modem systems anywhere.  I would be interested
in just hearing about a trial or even a demo.

-- 
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.  
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.