Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working

> My DSL circuit is carried on a wire-pair that is nearly 50 years old,

> That's nice. But a lot of old loop plant was replaced, in whole or in > part.

I think you will be surprised to find out how little "a lot" is in

> There *IS* a third alternative. Separate the 'content' from the >> 'delivery infrastructure'. > That brings back regulation. We broke up the Bell System to get away > from regulation and to go to competition.

My, how soon we forget. The Bell breakup was about long distance competition, and LD has indeed been quite competitive, at least until all of the LD carriers merge into one in a couple of years. But the breakup made no difference at all to local competition. Your local Bell company was and is just as much of a monopoly after the breakup as before.

So, if a telecom provider wants to bundle services, why shouldn't it?

Because the telecom provider is a monopoly, or now maybe a duopoly. The only companies with wires into everyone's house are the phone company and the cable company, and that is as true now as it was 20 years ago. The first mover advantage is insurmountable, and although it would be legal for someone to raise $100 billion and overbuild a new phone infrastructure alongside the one we have, it'll never happen. (If it were at all possible, it would have happened during the dot.com bubble when capital was free.) Verizon bundling DSL service is like your state telling you that you can only drive cars they sell you on their roads, and you are free to buy any other car you want if you build the roads to drive it on.

The point of splitting the telco into switchco and loopco is that the loop part is a natural monopoly and the switchco isn't. So split them up, require the loopco to provide service to everyone on an equal basis, and then completely deregulate the switchco. That would work, and we'd end up with a much more vibrant market.

Otherwise we're back to the Bell System and we must wait for the > government to tell us what we may and may not have.

Uh, no. Please, put down the kool-aid and think about what's really going on.

R's,

John

PS:

As an example, the Bell System proposed its first cellular (called > AMPS then) test system many years ago. It took the FCC over a YEAR to > grant permission.

Considering all the new radio spectrum they wanted, a year was pretty quick.

Reply to
John Levine
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.