You're failing to appreciate that it's fundamentally unfair to demand that a business hand over it's resources simply to make it easier for it's competitors.
No I haven't. I have already acknowledged that it is a problem to take away property from one business, and distribute it to another. The problems are many, and does not necessarily have to do with "fairness."
1. It would require an anti-trust law suit in order to do so. (The taking of property from one business, in order to distribute it to another has been established over a hundred years ago. It's called "anti-trust laws".)
2. Anti-trust lawsuits against a business operating as a regional monopoly, would be extremely complicated that I failed to clarify, that paulhatch clarified. As a "regional monopoly," Comcast has thousands....tens of thousands....of contracts with various local governments (at the county and city levels,) that allow them to operate as a monopoly in those particular areas. The history of anti-trust suits have only really been brought at a national level. Considering a local Comcast branch doesn't have lines that extend beyond state boundaries, I am not even sure that such a suit would even be possible.
But yes. It is entirely legal (and fair) to break up a large corporation (if it is large enough, if it is a monopoly, or if it violates its terms of agreement with government and/or individual customers), and redistribute its property to other businesses. Especially if it engages in "unfair business practices."
Now, it is "fair" to take away said property, if we, the people, through our government and elected officials, have given that business the privilege and opportunity to operate as a monopoly to begin with! We gaveth, and we can taketh away. Not to mention, a monopoly itself is inherently unfair. Therefore, it isn't "unfair" to take away part of that monopolies property to redistribute to other businesses in the name of competitive fairness. Francesca has thoroughly convinced me that is the best thing to do.
You can make the very same argument about cars vs buses - it's stupid to have so many cars on the road when it would be cheaper and possibly more efficient for us to use public transportation. But, that's not what we want, and we're willing to pay the cost for our own cars.
Uuummm....you got your comparison all wrong here. There is only one set of roads. It would be incredibly stupid, impractical, and VERY expensive if roads were privately owned, and each company had to build their own roads in the name of "competition." (Not to mention, it would literally be physically impossible.)
A telephone pole with lines, just like a city or a state with roads, can only hold so many lines (or build so many roads.) This is a physical reality. Not a biased opinion one can possibly hold. There are actual human beings (called "linemen,") who are paid very good money, who have a lot of knowledge and know-how, doing an already very dangerous job, covered by very expensive health insurance, who have to perform maintenance on those line. You cannot possibly add 4 or 5 sets of the exact same line type, without making an already complicated job, even more technically complicated and dangerous. Then you have an even worse problem in the middle of winter in the more northern states. These lines, literally, get weighted down by snow and ice. That weight would increase 2, 3, 4, or 5 fold if you were to add idiotically redundant lines! Yes. It is stupid, and completely unnecessary. As stupid and completely unnecessary as adding multiple sets of roads, or multiple sets of water pipes in the name of "competition."
And, regarding multiple wires into the house - so what if it's redundant. So are two gas stations at the same intersection or two home improvement centers on the same block. By your reasoning, only the first gas station should be allowed to exist and then since it has a monopoly, it should share its business with competitors.
But you are comparing apples to oranges here. Actually, let me roll with it for a second.
It is true. You can have two gas stations on the same corner. However, you cannot have more than 4 gas stations on the same corner. It would literally be a virtually, physical impossibility. Most intersections only have 4 corners, after all.
But here is where the comparisons between apples and oranges come in: The world of networking is much, much different from the world of construction. Why do you think that electricians make such good money? Better money, even, than construction workers? Because it requires a high-level of education in order to properly string up various different types of lines: electric lines, phone lines, etc, in a safe and organized manner. A single-family home is complicated enough. The average single-family home requires 3 or 4 different circuits.
Turn that single-family home into a 5-story apartment building. Suddenly, you need dozens, and dozens of circuits. In most apartment buildings, most individual apartments have at least 2 circuits each! And those are just the electricity lines! Never mind all the phone lines needed for each apartment. All internet lines. If you were to add 3 or 4 different ISPs, and all four ISPs were contracted to provide service to various different apartments throughout that building, each ISP with their own installation people coming in screwing around with wiring up their own wires through that building.....Seriously, you are asking for an absolute nightmare! One that is obnoxiously idiotic.
Then you have to add all those extra lines to the physical telephone poles outside. And all those lines have to be strung up for miles upon miles. And in the middle of winter, snow and ice piles up on those lines. You'll have different people, from different companies coming in, making repairs to their own lines. No thank you.
