IP: <I feel a rant coming on...> This Week's Clue: We Don’t Need No Steenkin' Wires

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: This Week's Clue: We Don't Need No  Steenkin' Wires
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:53:22 -0500
> From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>
>
> <I feel a rant coming on...>
>
> Dave,
>
> while i'm a huge fan of ubiquitous connectivity (which implies
> large-scale wireless access), there is nothing wrong with the
> existing wired infrastructure itself.  the problem lies with
> the companies that own it.
>
> for instance, there is technology available now that can
> run up to near 100 megabits (that's not a typo) over 20,000
> wire feet.  (of course not everyone gets 100 megabits - the
> average links are said to be more like 50 megabits or so, and
> these are "peak" numbers - we promise you will never exceed
> them.) but do you see it being deployed??
>
> the solution is pretty simple if dramatic - saw each of the
> ILECs in two, creating two companies.
>
> One public company sells nothing but copper last-mile service.
>
> The other company becomes but one of many companies who can
> drive electrons down the copper to deliver service if the
> customers wants them.  but the "last mile", though, must be
> available to all comers on the same price list.  if an ILEC
> wants to use that pair to offer a DS0 voice circuit with
> touch-tone(tm), distinctive ring, caller-id and voicemal,
> great! (my fax machine uses all that stuff quite cleverly)
> if another operator wants to put multimegabit *DSL over
> the circuit, that's fine too.  if that operator also wants to
> offer both voice and data service on that *DSL link, that's
> even more fine.
>
> like it or not, there *is* a natural monopoly in the copper
> plant.  so let there be companies that exist to do nothing
> but maximize the utility of that facility by selling access to
> that last mile to EVERYONE.
>
> however, there is no longer any natural monopoly in generating
> dial tone or decoding DTMF, just like there is no monopoly on
> forwarding packets.  those service operators should be free
> to duke it out in the market, but they can ONLY do that if
> there is real, open access to the last mile.  and as long as
> the last mile copper plant is controlled by the ILECs, that
> cannot happen, if for no other reason than they cannot conceive
> of it happening, even if the splitting would dramatically
> increase the combined market cap of the companies.
>
> the interesting apsect of this is that even if regulation
> cannot accomplish such a split, the stockholders, eyeing
> a significant increase in combined valuation, might insist.
>
> wouldn't that be amusing?? market forces acting to promote
> market forces!  what a concept!!!
>
>         yours for more enchanting fantasies
>
>         -mo

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/