nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet vs. Telephone company
From: Doug Tooley <dltooley () speakeasy org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Some context from Washington State: US West has recently been rebuffed in efforts before the Washington State legislature and our regulatory body, the WUTC (Washington Utilities and Telecommunications Commission). The request for an hourly rate is probably nothing more than a PR effort taking advantage of recent publicity about internet jams, a la AOL, etc. Given their recent failures here the effect of this publicity is much more likely to be through another RBOC citing the consideration of the policy here. That aside, infrastructure investment considerations are a valid subject and it would behoove those of us vested in this whole field to get a better handle on these numbers. (If not the infrastructure itself!) -DT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Internet vs. Telephone company Michael Shields (Feb 01)
- Re: Internet vs. Telephone company Doug Tooley (Feb 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Internet vs. Telephone company Stephen Sprunk (Feb 01)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Paul J. Zawada (Feb 01)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Michael Dillon (Feb 01)
- Re: Internet vs. Telephone company William Allen Simpson (Feb 02)
- Re: Internet vs. Telephone company Allan Chong (Feb 04)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Kent W. England (Feb 03)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Tim Brown (Feb 03)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Brian Tackett (Feb 03)
- Re: Internet vs. Telephone company Jeremy Porter (Feb 03)
- RE: Internet vs. Telephone company Tim Brown (Feb 03)