IP: Re: on bad reporting

[David Farber <dfarber () fast net>]

----- 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.
***************************************************************************