On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:53:32AM -0500, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
Henry Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In (at least) the Long Island, NY market, Verizon FTTH/FIOS installers
physically cut and decommission the copper upon fiber install.
Bye-bye DSL competition. Since they won't bring back
Owen DeLong wrote:
VZ certainly shouldn't remove any copper that doesn't belong to VZ. So,
unless they are the ILEC in Apple Valley
They are the ILEC in Apple Valley.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
My understanding is that there is a fairly small number of pots
circuits (2?) that they can bring in over the B-PON, and that moreover
ISDN BRI and hicap (eg. repeatered or HDSL DS1 service) are entirely
incompatible.
Circuit Emulation Services
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:58:45AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
[ snip ]
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
Henry Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In (at least) the Long Island, NY market, Verizon FTTH/FIOS installers
physically cut and decommission the copper upon fiber install.
Bye-bye DSL competition. Since they won't bring back the copper
even you don't like the FIOS service, it's permanent.
Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
My understanding is that there is a fairly small number of pots
circuits (2?) that they can bring in over the B-PON, and that moreover
ISDN BRI and hicap (eg. repeatered or HDSL DS1 service) are entirely
incompatible.
In Virginia, there's anecdotal evidence that
VZ certainly shouldn't remove any copper that doesn't belong to VZ. So,
unless
they are the ILEC in Apple Valley, that may or may not be an issue.
Owen
pgpYRQjKGEHor.pgp
Description: PGP signature
In some areas VZ will leave the copper in place if you simply ask, and in some
places you must forcefully insist.
I'm aware of a case in the Tampa area where a subscriber had to insist. While
he did wind up keeping his POTS lines intact, while adding a second feed in the
way of fiber for
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Verizon Retail 768k DSL, $14.95/month (includes everything)
Verizon Wholesale 768k DSL, $13.95/month + DS3 ATM + IP + support + e-
mail
Verizon CLEC 2W DSL
So... Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows and the basic OS costs
you $299 with virtually no server capabilities.
In the POSIX-style OS world, where you have multiple competitors,
prices range from $0 to $179.
Either these products are comparable or they are not. If they are
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most places have no fiber last-mile. Some do. Of those
that do, I know that many were installed by cable companies
and that there are in many of those places utility taxes
that are being collected and passed along to at least
partially fund said
--On November 15, 2005 11:02:18 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
As such, I think we should accept that monopoly and limit the monopoly
zone to that
Right, and this is appropriate. Large investments in infrastructure
should *not* be made if there's already adequate service. Better to
invest in places where there isn't.
Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price
which is two to three times what it
This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very
bad one.
But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100
years
when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are
now
by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Hello;
On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be
--On November 16, 2005 4:23:20 AM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
David Barak wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
--- JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Barak wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes... Here's some more accurate data:
Windows 3.1 price $49
Windows 3.1.1 price $99
Windows 95 (Personal) price $59
Windows 98
To : David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc : nanog@merit.edu
Attchmnt:
Subject : Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
- Message Text -
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, David Barak wrote:
Windows * prices - $???
Slackware in 98 - A few hours downloading.
The problems most people
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes... Here's some more accurate data:
Windows 3.1 price $49
Windows 3.1.1
--On November 16, 2005 9:25:29 PM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes...
Technically, lots of other providers CAN enter the
market - it's just very expensive to do so. If there
are customers who are not receiving service from one
of the incumbent providers, a third party is certainly
welcome to {dig a trench | build wireless towers | buy
lots of well-trained
--- Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the exact problem with a [mon|du]opoly. The
incumbents drive
the price so low (because they own the network) that
it drives out an
potential competition.
So you're complaining that the problem with lack of
competition is that the
The RBOCs
should be split up into a wholesale *only* division (owns the poles,
wires, buildings,switches) and a services *retail* division (owns the
dialtone, bandwidth, customers ). The wholesale division should
sell service to the retail division at a regulated TELRIC based price
That is the exact problem with a [mon|du]opoly. The
incumbents drive
the price so low (because they own the network) that
it drives out an
potential competition.
So you're complaining that the problem with lack of
competition is that the prices are too LOW? As a
consumer, I'm thrilled with
That is the exact problem with a [mon|du]opoly. The
incumbents drive
the price so low (because they own the network) that
it drives out an
potential competition.
So you're complaining that the problem with lack of
competition is that the prices are too LOW? As a
consumer, I'm
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True
competition requires the ability
for multiple providers to enter into the market,
including the creation
of new providers to seize opportunities being
ignored by
--On November 15, 2005 7:25:54 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the exact problem with a [mon|du]opoly. The
incumbents drive
the price so low (because they own the network) that
it drives out an
potential competition.
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market, including the creation of new providers to seize
opportunities being ignored by the
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think what is really represented there is that because
they own an existing network that was built with public
subsidy and future entrants have no such access to public
subsidy to build their own network,
Some people may think public subsidy implies
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 7:25:54 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what is really represented there is that
because
they own an existing network that was built with
public
subsidy
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market,
--On November 15, 2005 11:23:50 PM -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think what is really represented there is that because
they own an existing network that was built with public
subsidy and future entrants have no such access to public
I think what is really represented there is that
because
they own an existing network that was built with
public
subsidy and future entrants have no such access to
public
subsidy to build their own network, ...
Sean's post correctly identified the problem with this
assertion, so I won't
And I
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is more or less what BT has done in the UK by splitting
off all the field engineering into a separate company called
Openreach.
Telia in Sweden did that (Skanova), now that they're privatised (partly)
they're merging that unit back again,
39 matches
Mail list logo
