🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn7a9ac6.pte.ese002@spica.exile.org>, ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>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.

And the *reason* there aren't any multi-provider cable modem systems?  Because 
they've never been required to.  Five years ago, there were no "multi- 
provider" telco lines either.  That didn't stop the FCC from ordering 
unbundling anyway.