Um, actually they can. By law, the telephone companies have the power of eminent domain. That government grants that power to the utilities with a public franchise. A utility can condemn your property and confiscate it for "fair market value" - or just run their wires or pipelines or whatever through it without compensating the owner of the property.
My point is - when a utility gets those sort of powers to use other people's property without compensation - in the public interest - it's fair to expect that the utility will be subject to some regulations, including sharing the "last mile".
There is another good reason for requiring the telephone utilities to share their "last mile" - we don't need an excessive overbuild of buried cable and wires added to utility poles. That will cause a lot more problems. Ever seen a picture of Beirut? It's ugly. They have so much wire haphazardly strung up in every direction that it looks like the city is covered with a cobweb.
I remember when the phone companies had rules that prohibited customers from attaching answering machines or fax machines or modems from their telephone lines. They claimed it would destroy the telehphone network if customers started attaching their own equipment. The "Carterfone" decision struck down that rule. The telephone network was not destroyed, and in fact, the opposite happened. It sparked a telecommunications revolution.
So I'm not buying this garbage that the telephone companies can't deploy universal DSL unless they get a law prohibiting competitors from offering service over the phone lines.
I'm doubting this as there is a current legal challenge in my area that prohibits us from installing any additional plant for several miles along a highway because the owner of it is refusing access to the property.
'So I'm not buying this garbage that the telephone companies can't deploy universal DSL unless they get a law prohibiting competitors from offering service over the phone lines.'
I guess it's a good thing that's not the argument I presented. The argument that I presented requiring the reselling of access at a cut rate as well as federal taxation of certain equipment prohibits the investing of capital.
I'm just asking for fair treatment. If we do this to the Telco's we should do the same for the cable companies. We should require total access to their equipment and system for 75-80% of cost as well as progressive taxation of their equipment. Besides when was the last time you saw a local competitive cable company offering to reconnect your cable TV even if you owed the other regional cable company money.