Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
----- "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the physical plant to higher level service providers on an equal footing.
To all intents and purposes what we have in the UK. BT, the old, formally government-owned, then privatised, effective last-mile monopoly, was split up. (I believe in return for some more government cash to build infrastructure, but I could be wrong on the order of events). BT OpenReach is now responsible for wires on poles / in the ground, CO space etc, and has to sell access to these to other divisions of BT (Wholesale, Residential) in the same arms-length way they sell them to other ISPs. It doesn't always work *quite* like that, especially in respect of actually getting space and power in COs, but the framework is there... Regards, Tim.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
----- "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the physical plant to higher level service providers on an equal footing.
To all intents and purposes what we have in the UK. BT, the old, formally government-owned, then privatised, effective last-mile monopoly, was split up. (I believe in return for some more government cash to build infrastructure, but I could be wrong on the order of events).
BT OpenReach is now responsible for wires on poles / in the ground, CO space etc, and has to sell access to these to other divisions of BT (Wholesale, Residential) in the same arms-length way they sell them to other ISPs. It doesn't always work *quite* like that, especially in respect of actually getting space and power in COs, but the framework is there...
Regards, Tim.
Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a prohibition of common ownership or management. Essentially, require that the stock be split and each current owner receives one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than 3% of the companies having 180 days to divest from one company or the other, or, reduce their total investment in both below 3% with a requirement that the infrastructure provider not retain any portion of the name of the original company and no relationship other than supplier to the service provider company. Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best thing for the consumers. Owen
----- "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a prohibition of common ownership or management. Essentially, require that the stock be split and each current owner receives one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than 3% of the companies having 180 days to divest from one company or the other, or, reduce their total investment in both below 3% with a requirement that the infrastructure provider not retain any portion of the name of the original company and no relationship other than supplier to the service provider company.
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best thing for the consumers.
Presumably for both the consumers *and* every company involved in network services who doesn't have the luck of a historical last-mile monopoly. Regards, Tim.
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best thing for the consumers.
Presumably for both the consumers *and* every company involved in network services who doesn't have the luck of a historical last-mile monopoly.
Regards, Tim.
Well, I really don't see this whole thing as about Comcast, per se. It is bigger than that. Generally, I have no problems with a network doing whatever it wants to do when there is competition for the end users. The problem in my mind comes in when the buyer has no realistic alternative. So I believe the regulations should be at the local level where the actual users are because what is true in Omaha might not be true in Wichita. Attempting to make "one size fits all" regulations at the federal level generally doesn't turn out well, even if done with the best of intentions, because there are just too many one-off situations. Places that, for example, have competition for high-speed triple-play services where the users can "vote with their feet" if a provider's policies don't serve their needs probably need a lot less regulation than a place with only one provider of that sort of service. This shouldn't devolve into a "bash Comcast" session so much as it should address how "single player" markets are handled regardless of the provider involved.
participants (4)
-
George Bonser -
ML -
Owen DeLong -
Tim Franklin