Charles W. wrote:Don't think anyone said that markets always fail, but that the market don't always work. That's a pretty big difference.
A totally free market does not work for public services such as gas, electric, and telecommunications.The cost of infrastructure is phenomenal. It would not be in the interest of customers to ultimately bear the burden of duplicate infrastructure. That's why our government regulates access to this industry. Once awarded a franchise they have a monopoly of service. That's why we have Public Service Commissions to theoretically place checks and balances on the companies fortunate enough to procure a monopoly such as LG&E. It's a tightrope balancing the reality that companies must make a profit to remain in business and invest in new technologies against the public good of the lowest possible cost for services.
The telecommunications market dating back to landline and rotary phone days that I well remember, up to the present is one that the Federal Government has deemed (appropriately in my opinion) a crucial public service and national security issue. They therefore encouraged expansion of service throughout the US. through mandates and subsidies.
A telecom in return for licensing was required to install cable into remote areas that would and will never pay for the cost of infrastructure. This cost is subsidized by user fees from more densely populated areas within the franchise territory and by government subsidies paid to telecoms with tax monies.There are federal subsidies today designed to speed the expansion of access and bandwidth. They are funded by fees and taxes on your telephone and cable bilsl.
The one distinction here is a restaurant is a third party unlike a communication provider like AT&T that is in the business For a restaurant, requiring Wi-Fi to me is akin to requiring linen napkins instead of paper. A distinction of service.
I personally believe wi-fi should be universally available but the question remains who will pay for it.