North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: What do we mean when we say "competition?"

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Wed Nov 16 11:59:54 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ca/6Rd7BNtUD+XKUkA4UpXIwol6oKdDEPzXLXm4ZYiRbTnwFO6uXHwcEo5doTezEdyEEhefwFzE5HIy4A6y2UDuGJRip9n9th2rNaBYDxXHzukLLjAoMHODQTdJVfEwjELxwMWX35RLXgV/p/IQ0vt+OUp11LwA9uRH81jr2CpY= ;

--- Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is that still true if the "adequate" service is
being provided at > a price which is two to three
times what it should be costing and > the provider is
enjoying the ability to do this because nobody 
> else is in the market space?

I'm confused.  Earlier in this thread you were arguing
that the current providers were keeping priced
artificially LOW.


> After 25 years, we're finally starting to see the 
> beginnings of recognition of that in American
> services.  Generally speaking, I don't think the
market is well 
> served by having to wait that long.

Are you saying that US market is 25 years behind other
countries in anything?  There is greater hi-speed
penetration in some non-US markets with dramatically
different demographics (mostly much higher density),
and few businesses here have seen a compelling reason
to move to IPv6, but what exactly is so lacking?


> So, do you really think that if SBC had the same
terms for 
> access to the MDF<->MPOE leg that any competitor had
this would 
> not actually change or would get worse?  I don't.  

The example the above quote referred to was about SBC
not meeting the services of some individuals in CA,
but who don't have access to a CLEC.  It's fairly
disingenuous to say that the MDF <-> MPOE leg is the
problem there, because that is actually the regulated
portion of SBC (in-region ILEC activities are heavily
regulated, and a great deal of emphasis at SBC is
placed on compliance with regulations): if no CLECs
have stepped up to provide service to those customers,
that's probably because they don't think it's
profitable to do so.

> OTOH, if the shared LMI was operated by a neutral
third party
> and leased to SBC and any other competitor at the
same price for
> the same component, that would resolve most of what
> bothering me about the current system.  It would
allow me
> to buy phone service without giving money to SBC. 
> I can't do that unless I go to VOIP over WISP which
has its
> own set of tradeoffs.

Depends on the town, doesn't it?  In DC, there are
three phone providers who run their own last-mile to
(some) homes.  Nobody other than Verizon will come to
my house, but Cavalier and RCN both go to condo
buildings nearby.  In addition, lots of people here
have VoIP over cableco (mostly Comcast), and even more
have no land line at all.  

Anecdote: A co-worker is getting Verizon FTTH, and
they have to dig about a 3/4 mile trench to his house
(he's rural).  He's not being charged for the
installation, even though it'll be several years
before it pays for itself.  It's hard to see that as
an example of a {big | evil} monopoly which is hurting

Regarding your proposal, are there other utilities
which are subject to the same rule (that the
infrastructure can be repurchased by the city at the
city's convenience)?

Another thing to consider is the definition of "LMI" -
specifically, what do you mean by "last mile?"  Do you
mean from the house to the street (think sewer), or
from the house to a junction box on the corner (think
power), or from the house to a central office
somewhere, or some other distance?  

Also, what about provisions for point-to-point layer-1
service?  Under your proposal, cities may become
responsible for providing this themselves - is that
what you intend?  

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise:

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005