--- Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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. <snip>
After 25 years, we're finally starting to see the beginnings of recognition of that in American telecommunications services. Generally speaking, I don't think the market is well served by having to wait that long.
So, do you really think that if SBC had the same terms for access to the MDF<->MPOE leg that any competitor had
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? <snip> this would
not actually change or would get worse? I don't.
OTOH, if the shared LMI was operated by a neutral
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. third party
and leased to SBC and any other competitor at the same price for the same component, that would resolve most of what is bothering me about the current system. It would allow me to buy phone service without giving money to SBC. Today, 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 consumers. 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: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com