Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The solution seems to be competition or regulation. I'd prefer competition to regulation.
-- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: |> The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. ============= If real and true competition exists, yes.
And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the competition, I mean "invest in other companies". On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> wrote:
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: |> The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. =============
If real and true competition exists, yes.
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space. At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get more than one provider installing any given media type. An independent layer 1 provider required to provide equal access to all competing layer 2+ providers in each are would drive increased competition in L2+ services. Owen On Mar 20, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Jeremy <stealth702@gmail.com> wrote:
And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the competition, I mean "invest in other companies". On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> wrote:
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: |> The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. =============
If real and true competition exists, yes.
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:51:07 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get more than one provider installing any given media type. An independent layer 1 provider required to provide equal access to all competing layer 2+ providers in each are would drive increased competition in L2+ services.
What some governments are doing in Asia-Pac and Africa is funding national optical backbones that can be shared by all. The biggest mistake they make, however, is either contract the incumbent to run these national backbone, or get the incumbents and vendors to sub-contract someone of their choosing to run these networks. The general idea, however, is a likely solution to neutralizing the physical layer. Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get more than one provider installing any given media type. An independent layer 1 provider required to provide equal access to all competing layer 2+ providers in each are would drive increased competition in L2+ services.
Gee; what a great idea. Cheers, -- jr ':-)' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The solution seems to be competition or regulation. I'd prefer competition to regulation.
When regulation is done well, competition is the result. Consider the following hypothetical regulation: 1. Any company which deploys communication cable in a public right-of-way is forbidden to sell data storage, data content or services delivering specific data content of any kind including: web sites or web hosting services, email services, audio and visual recordings, television channels. 2. Any company which employs communication cable in a public right-of-way is required to sell its services on a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) basis to all who wish to buy. What would be the result? Incidentally, this isn't a fresh idea. The FCC first got the notion over 50 years ago and more or less regulated telecommunications that way for a quarter of a century. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
participants (7)
-
Bryan Fields -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeremy -
Mark Tinka -
Mike. -
Owen DeLong -
William Herrin