--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
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.
--- 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 the existing ones.
Technically, lots of other providers CAN enter the
market -
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
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
--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 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 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 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,
14 matches
Mail list logo
