Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Re: on bad reporting
From: David Farber <dfarber () fast net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 18:22:29 -0400
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Savage" <chris.savage () crblaw com> To: <farber () cis upenn edu> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: RE: on bad reporting
I normally don't blast reporters but this one is so off base that it deserves blasting. The memo referenced was prepared by one of my "former students" -- Mark Laubach as a public service on invitation for a person in the administration. I announced its availability to the IP list and have myself circulated it to all I thought would be interested. This reporter is trying to turn it into a deep conspiracy when all it seems to be is laziness on their part (well ignorance) by not subscribing to IP :-)I have to agree with Dave (not that I normally would disagree with him). ISTM that there are several issues here. (1) Is it technically possible/feasible to configure a cable Internet-access system to be able
to
accommodate multiple ISPs? (2) Does it make business sense to do so, and, if so, under what conditions? and (3) What, if anything, does the law require of cable operators in this connection? My personal view is that the answer to (1) has to be "yes" as a matter of principle. If the capability does not exist today, tell Cisco et al. to figure out how to do it and they will. I am personally ignorant as to the technology, but I have nearly infinite confidence in the inventiveness of equipment vendors in this space. As to (2), it's like the old joke; what really matters is price. There is
a
market test: will cable ops be willing to do whatever it is the Ciscos of the world make possible for less than the ISP has to pay an ILEC or CLEC
for
a DSL/ATM connection from an end user to the ISP's location? If yes, then the market will solve this problem. If no, then the ISPs should use DSL. And this is hard why? As to (3), pending a decision from the 9th Circuit in the Portland case,
it
seems pretty clear that cable ops have exactly -0- **obligation** to accommodate independent ISPs. So we fall back on (1) and (2) -- the
market
and technology -- which should indeed be sufficient. So what's the "conspiracy"? --"FLASH -- Cable Ops Deploy Networks
Consistent
with Current Technology and Their Legal Obligations! Film at 11!" I don't think so. Chris S.
***************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
***************************************************************************
Current thread:
- IP: Re: on bad reporting David Farber (Jun 02)