If North American cable-and-internet providers were honest, they’d produce an ad that went like this. Note that there’s some swearing involved, as is often the case with cable-and-internet providers.
Major General (Retired) Charles Calvin Rogers was the highest-ranking African-American to receive the Medal of…
Another Sunday, another “picdump!” Here are 200+ memes, pictures, and cartoons floating around the internet…
A Swedish TV program labelled Vladimir Putin as “President USA.” My thoughts on this:
[ The original version of this article is incorrect, so I’m substituting its content with…
A reminder: kakistocracy means “a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent…
Le Figaro, a daily newspaper in France that’s been around since 1826, has published an…
View Comments
Interesting. It alleges cartel behavior. I'm only aware of the local monopoly/duopoly effect. Cartel behavior (i.e. price-fixing agreements) would be illegal. Not that it would really surprise me.
It's also worth noting that there are at least two options where I live for TV/Internet/Phone services, which is better than what it was a decade ago, where most places just had one option.
It's a tricky problem to solve. Having each company string its own network is really inefficient (but it's what happened when FiOS rolled out). Having one company control the wires is just the worst effects of a government monopoly and a corporate monopoly. What would be interesting, though technically tricky, is letting multiple companies compete over the same wires. Have the local government own the basic infrastructure, but let companies compete for customers by offering services. Like municipal broadband, but with some actual choice.