Bizarre conclusions / US centric
I can't for the life of me work out what happened to the reg's journalism.
This whole article should be prefaced - this may be true in the US!
Since when did locking consumers to one provider reduce the incentives for that provider to provide a good service / invest in their network.
Surely it has the opposite effect ? If consumers are free to move around - networks will be forced to invest.
If only there was an example.
Oh yeah right there is. Many US cities only have 1 broadband provider - so it's impossible to switch. Which is why my colleagues in the Valley spend hundreds of dollars on <100mbps broadband - delivered by crap service providers - where in London I have access to at least 6 options and pay considerably less for 400mbps.
Crap journalism. Crap conclusion.