nanog mailing list archives
Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?"
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:04:12 -0800 (PST)
--- Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:--On November 15, 2005 7:25:54 AM -0800 David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com> wrote:--- Matthew Crocker <matthew () crocker com> wrote:
I think what is really represented there is that because they own an existing network that was built with public subsidy and future entrants have no such access to public subsidy to build their own network, ...
Sean's post correctly identified the problem with this assertion, so I won't
The government should recognize that the existing build has actually been paid for mostly by public subsidy anyway and as such, should require the ILECs to split into two separate divisions.
You mean the existing FIBER build was mostly paid by public subsidy? Do you have a reference for that?
One division would be a wholesale only infrastructure delivery company that would maintain the physical infrastructure. As part of this, ownership of the physical infrastructure in place would be transferred to an appropriate local civil body (city, county, district, etc.) and said body should have an initial 5 year contract with the infrastructure portion of the ILEC to provide existing services on a provider- neutral basis (same price to all ILECs, Clecs, etc.). At the end of that 5 year contract, the maintenance of the infrastructure should be up for bid, and, if the existing ILEC infrastructure portion can't win the bid, they are out of luck.
I don't know how familiar you are with what the government contracting process is like, but the word "unpleasant" comes to mind: it's long, hard, and cumbersome. Your model would substantially increase the amount of government contracting required, so you would need to be able to show a benefit to society of corresponding magnitude.
Right, but, faced with potential competition, they are notorious for temporarily lowering prices well below sustainable levels in order to eliminate said competition.
Are you alleging that the ILECs/RBOCs are providing services below cost? If so, call a regulator. If not, while the profits may be lower than desired by the ILEC/RBOC, it's certainlly "sustainable"
The '96 telecom act did nothing to take the last mile infrastructure out of the hands of the existing ILEC.
You are correct. However, the '96 telecom act did give lots of other companies the OPPORTUNITY to build their own last mile access. Your proposal actually drives toward a more monopolistic, regulated environment.
However, for any given last-mile buildout, the people should retain title to the infrastructure(s) and management should be by a carrier-neutral party under contract to the people. (yes, practically speaking, s/people/government/, but, I use the term people to remind us that the government is supposed to be acting as our proxy for such things). If a company wants to deploy new infrastructure,
they
should have equal access to right-of-way to deploy
it.
However, such access should include a mechanism for transfer of ownership (with appropriate
compensation)
of said infrastructure to the people for carrier neutrality after some fixed period of time at the option of the people.
So Verizon should be prohibited from building out FTTH? I assume that your approach of "the Government owns all layer 1" would also include 802.11, GSM, CDMA, and all other network types, right? If not, why not?
Now, the ILEC can continue to provide service at the same price, but, they no longer have a cost-basis advantage or the ability to delay, defer, interfere with CLEC installs on the same infrastructure.
Any interference is currently unlawful, and all of the companies regulated under sections 271 and 272 have extensive procedures in place to prevent it. If you've got specific complaints about a specific company, you should be talking to a regulator. So, to summarize - far less than "all" of the ILEC/RBOC infrastructure was "paid for with public funds." (as opposed to user fees), you'd argue for far greater government participation in the marketplace, and the removal of any competition for layer 0/1 services, in favor of competition at layers 2 and higher. Why is that good again? David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Current thread:
- Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill], (continued)
- Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill] Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) David Barak (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Matthew Crocker (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" David Barak (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Matthew Crocker (Nov 15)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" David Schwartz (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" David Barak (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" Sean Donelan (Nov 16)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Michael . Dillon (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Mikael Abrahamsson (Nov 15)
- Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) David Schwartz (Nov 15)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Sean Donelan (Nov 15)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) Owen DeLong (Nov 16)
- RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]) David Schwartz (Nov 16)