 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to karlmarx
Re: a "policy" said by karlmarx:I for one, would be happy to see the government MANDATE that any company that wants to provide internet, will need to run fiber, AND have open access to said network. The only problem with that statement is that it just wont work in reality. What would the incentive be for a company to build a network then? Think about it, why would Telco X spend millions/billions deploying a network for everyone else to use? Why would Telco X spend further millions/billions upgrading said network for other companies to benefit? I am not saying the idea of "high speed for all" is bad, I am simply pointing out that its a Utopian dream that cant work in 2008 America (at least in the way you present it).
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | I don't know why I'm still astonished this rationale is still around...
Q. Why would anyone want to build a datacenter where everyone else can stick their own server in there?
A. Because there's nothing in such proposals that the the owner would have to provide access to the DC for free.
Wait, we're not talking about datacenters or any other such thing. Sorry, forgot that apparently broadband infrastructure couldn't possibly work under the same concept...
KM |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | That'd be a great argument were it not for the fact that incumbents, unlike datacenter operators, are forced by government to lease access at wholesale rates. If you own a datacenter, you have an incentive to differentiate your product so you can garner a higher price, thereby acquiring more profit. Under the 1996 telecommunications act, ILECs have to lease access at government-regulated rates.
Telcos don't pour billions into FTTP just for the heck of it. The idea behind services like FiOS is that down the line, there will be a big profit to be made. Without the potential for big rewards, what incentive is there for firms to take big risks? |
|
| My second job would be a fasttrac of several hundred nucular plants in the next 10 years, the environment studies be damned, all this talk of a huge grid and wind leaves out the simple fact that there is a tremendious drop off the further you transport electricty, build those suckers right next to where they are needed.
Lets build 5 right here in LA, clean up the air and stop with the greenhouse gasses, keep the jobs and money here! I am happy to have one across the street! |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:I don't know why I'm still astonished this rationale is still around... Q. Why would anyone want to build a datacenter where everyone else can stick their own server in there? A. Because there's nothing in such proposals that the the owner would have to provide access to the DC for free. Wait, we're not talking about datacenters or any other such thing. Sorry, forgot that apparently broadband infrastructure couldn't possibly work under the same concept... KM The situation you describe is exactly how the next generation networks (FIOS) are set up now. In fact, Verizon has already struck some reseller agreements. The difference between whats happening now and what karlmarx suggested, is that one is a forced relationship while the other is a business relationship. Business relationships occur when both parties find value in a given deal.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to jaminus
said by jaminus: Under the 1996 telecommunications act, ILECs have to lease access at government-regulated rates. Yeap, and as I understand it, the rates that were set by the government...were set based on what the ILECs reported were their costs.
Of course, the ILECs did not inflate those costs at all...right? They didn't have to provide any cost justifications as I've read...
KM |
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to wifi4milez
Right! Except VZ doesn't have to share with anyone. Perhaps there should be regulation stating you must offer to share at some set pricing (set by VZ, not otherwise) - standard rates - so VZ can't say "we won't lick our shoes so no resale for you"...
Who is VZ reselling with currently?
The biggest problem is VZ will always be able to undercut the third-party service. I really believe infrastructure should be separated from services, forcibly perhaps.
KM |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | reply to KoolMoe
»www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/filereqt.html
ARMIS reports, which include detailed cost allocation forms, are required from all ILECs except for those in a handful of markets with have been deemed sufficiently competitive for the FCC to relax, or in some cases, eliminate price caps. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:The biggest problem is VZ will always be able to undercut the third-party service. I really believe infrastructure should be separated from services, forcibly perhaps. KM Ahh, but thats the fatal flaw in your argument. Forcing the provider to allow others to use their network "at a price the provider sets" is somewhat pointless. Those that chose not to offer a viable resale channel, will simply offer access at a very high rate. This will effectively detour most other carriers.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to jaminus
Kind of relevant?
I don't see any direct correlation between those filings and the rates "the government" set for those TA'96 lease requirements. Could be...but I don't see any such match...
KM |
|
