--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 infr
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
>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 tim
> > 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 wh
> 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
--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...
--On November 16, 2005 1:48:39 AM -0500 Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
areas, it's actually illegal. Usually, municipalities
have granted franchise rights of access to right of
way to particular companies on an exclus
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, and
> --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
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
> areas, it's actually illegal. Usually, municipalities
> have granted franchise rights of access to right of
> way to particular companies on an exclusive basis. That
> makes it pretty hard for a competitor 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, inc
> --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 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
> 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
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 pigeons
--- 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
mar
16 matches
Mail list logo
