On 12/23/10 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's municipal,
it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
enable competition by making it practical for
- Original Message -
From: Frank Bulk - iName.com frnk...@iname.com
Uhm, D-CATV is not IP just quite yet. Sometimes I wish that's the
case, but it's still very much RF.
There are several vendors that sell GPON solutions that support RF
over fiber, and there's always IP TV.
Hmm. I
That's not my understanding.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
- Original Message -
From: Frank Bulk - iName.com frnk...@iname.com
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
After looking at many models I think Australia might be on to
something. The model is that a quasi-government monopoly provides
the last mile physical wire, but is unable to sell services on it.
Basically they only provide
- Original Message -
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:03, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:14, Andrew Koch andrew.k...@gawul.net wrote:
Those look more like power lines, with a substation in the background.
Helps to read the whole thing; you were talking about power lines. I
missed a few messages when this took a turn off from last mile
communications
- Original Message -
From: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Overbuild is practical *ONLY* where: (a) the population density is
high,lowering 'per customer' costs, and (b) service 'penetration' is high
enough that the active subscriber base (as distinct from 'potential'
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's
municipal,
it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
enable competition by making it practical for competitors to start up, since
they'll have
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[...]
The fact that I can get a wavelength to county dump in Eugene OR the
composting facility in Palo Alto doesn't really do anything for the
residential access market.
Why not?
You have to start with connectivity *somewhere*. If
- Original Message -
From: John Osmon jos...@rigozsaurus.com
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[...]
The fact that I can get a wavelength to county dump in Eugene OR the
composting facility in Palo Alto doesn't really do anything for the
residential
: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:20 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
snip
And since D-CATV is pretty much delivered over IP these days *anyway*,
it won't even be technically difficult for cable providers to hook up
customers over such a backbone.
snip
On 12/20/2010 3:14 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadband at all.
Satellite, Cellular, and T-1, those are my options.
A mile away, there are choices, but not here. I am sure we aren't the only
neighborhood in this
- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the
physical plant to higher level
On Monday, December 20, 2010 06:36:03 pm you wrote:
Those are all still sub-T1 on the uplink and well below normal CMTS service
speeds. Low-end CMTS is around 15Mbps/7Mbps.
Yeah, at least with the T-1 you aren't oversubscribed. One company for whom I
consult was going to go from their T-1 to
I faced a similar challenge. If you have line of sight to something, you can do
fixed wireless for maybe 200-400 depending on the gear and frequencies
involved. Check out the ubnt 365 or m5 gear. Cheap as in disposable. Works
quite well. Then order a Comcast business connection there and call
Check out http://www.wispdirectory.com
Go to Contact Us and fill out the form. If you are only a mile away
from a WISP, there is a chance they will build out to you.
On 12/20/2010 6:14 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer
On 12/21/10 1:42 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_ as paying the FedEx
service/delivery fee. This is true if it is just the letter you're sending,
or if it is a sealed
On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
plant. The physical plant operating companies should
The Comcast proposed business model is simply wrong, and unsustainable without
essentially being a protection racket. Pay us more money or your service will
be kneecapped
We have laws against extortion.
We also have laws against warrantless wiretaps. Comcast seeks retroactive
On 12/20/10 9:07 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
Do you have any cites saying that this was actually rolled out? Or did the
project get cut during the financial crisis, and never actually rolled out?
The issue I have with all these cites is that none
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: Lamar Owen [mailto:lo...@pari.edu]
Interestingly enough, we've tried to do H.323 with some folks on a CMTS
connection, and have yet to succeed in smooth video.
- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a
prohibition of common ownership or management. Essentially,
require that the stock be split and each current owner receives
one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than
On 12/20/2010 8:51 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:47:45PM -0500, David Sparro
wrote:
I still think that the link shows that the factors are more economic
than regulatory. As you point out, even where the regulatory obstacles
have been overcome, it is not clear that Verizon ever actually did
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:26:48 am Rettke, Brian wrote:
The problem is probably not the connection speed, but congestion on the CMTS.
If the downstream is saturated (too many people watching Netflix on a node)
the available shared bandwidth may not be enough to support your real-time
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:42:09AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box,
Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it,
--Congestion == oversubscribed. I would love to see a public posting or
notice or something on my ISP's website showing current flows and congestion
(the Cacti driven Network Weathermap is one such tool I've seen networks use;
one of my providers used to have one publicly available, and it was
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far
too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best
thing for the consumers.
Presumably for both the consumers *and* every company involved in
network services who doesn't have the luck of a historical
On 12/20/2010 06:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
snip
I'm happy for you. The ATT cable plant in my neighborhood is unable to
sustain any better than 1.5mbps/384k on ADSL.
And mine (older Baltimore-area, ex-bell atlantic, now verizon) won't
sustain 384x384 at 15k ft, it works with about 10% packet
On 12/21/2010 10:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too
powerful a
lobbying force snip
Owen
Sad that we can admit this fact so freely.
On 12/21/2010 10:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The lesson here is that we need to decided what it is we are offering. As an
ISP, we never offered different rates by distance or for different types of
traffic. We did offer different rates for different sized pipes (aka volume).
That is, we
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:41:09PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Contrary to popular belief the average person tend to severely dislike
all forms of road construction or having their yard repeatedly torn up.
I know it's all happy fun times to say let's have 10 water/electrical
providers and
On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
On Sunday 19 December 2010 22:25, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
Running a wire to everyone's house is a natural monopoly. It just
doesn't make sense, financially or technically, to try and manage 50
different companies all trying to install 50 different wires into every
house
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Department of Telecommunications (DoT), is the monopoly operator in India.
That photo isn't due to a situation where there were numerous different
providers, it's due to ONE provider with a monopoly, doing a half-assed job.
On 12/20/2010 06:55 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
that is a good way to invest their finite resources.
Yes and no, we tried that way back when but found out that
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Dec 19 23:31:25
2010
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You
On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:45 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_wires447x625.jpg
This is not the result of many different providers, it's the result of one
provider stringing many lines to
On 20/12/2010, at 12:25 AM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JC Dilljcdill.li...@gmail.com said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to
Evidently this list is interested in telecommunications law. I was worried it
would be considered OT, but since people are talking about it, here are some
clarifications...
On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
They have been granted a
On Dec 20, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Dec 19 23:31:25
2010
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to
Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet services.
Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and the
definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the FCC,
as I noted here (in response to the first message in which you
On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you believe that
player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of players 1-5? What if player
two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on a speaking circuit,
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet
services. Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and
the definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the
FCC, as I noted here
On Monday, December 20, 2010 12:20:37 pm Steve Schultze wrote:
There are no government-enforced monopoly rights on cable or copper/fiber
these days.
Unless you qualify as a 47USC153(37) 'Rural Telephone Company' and then there
are. Example being 253(f).
Until recently I was served by such
On Monday, December 20, 2010 01:22:17 pm JC Dill wrote:
But how do we GET there? I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own
the layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws
and policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer
1 facilities to the
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze
wrote:
Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines
to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors
to build out their own facilities-based lines. Even
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
So from about 1996 to 2000 we had competition. They then figured out
how to rig the system so there is no effective competition, and so far
the government has been A-Ok with that.
You also miss the part about the capital
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze
wrote:
Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines
to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-
gerbil.net wrote:
Running
On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
[snip]
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google cable overbuilder
On 12/20/2010 11:44, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
[snip]
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators. You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
that
On 20/12/2010, at 1:22 PM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you
believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of
players 1-5? What if player
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:46:10AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo
wrote:
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
SF Bay,
Bresley [mailto:b...@brezworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US
Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org said:
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
Huntsville, AL has Comcast and Knology (originally CableAlabama) cable
available at virtually every address (except for some apartment
complexes, which tend to only be
On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Amazing how that worked, even spelling fransisco (sic) wrong.
One letter off:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco
The result is not competition, but a government sponsored duopoliy.
This didn't bring more players to the table, it just let those already
at the table offer a full set of overlapping services. Likely a good
step, but not the same as getting new entrants into the market.
--
Leo
On 20/12/10 12:00 PM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
the point of the bubble analogy had more to do with poor speculation driving
poor investments than it had to do with the nature of the build outs. I don't
really think it would be far-fetched to see it happen again in broadband
(perhaps in a
On 20/12/10 12:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Amazing how that worked,
or didn't
even spelling fransisco (sic) wrong.
One letter off:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco
Did either of you actually *look* at the search
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:37 AM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say there
are no are this datum generalizes for all in most all of this
and sister
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:46:39PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
[snip]
Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
overbuilds are currently in
On 12/20/2010 12:46, JC Dill wrote:
Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
overbuilds are currently in place and serving customers.
On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
So, we seem to circle the same points:
1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth
requirements?
Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since they
are collecting fees for the service
On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.
This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.
FWIW, I'm at 14-15 kilofeet from the CO, and am getting a solid 7Mb/s
On 12/20/2010 12:05 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The laws of diminishing returns have already set the bar for the point
at which it's not profitable for a new company to enter the market and
try to compete. Right now the number is roughly 2, cable and
On 12/20/2010 3:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Their copper in my area is nearly new, they have spent the last five
years or so refreshing and updating their copper outside plant.
This makes a huge difference. At a little over 18,000 feet, I had to
drop to 3m down .5 up to stabilize my DSL
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
We have 2 separate cable providers in our town. One of them is a division of
the local telephone company, but it is still CATV plant. The telco also
operates a FTTH service with IPTV video as well.
The result is
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadband at all.
Satellite, Cellular, and T-1, those are my options.
A mile away, there are choices, but not here. I am sure we aren't the only
neighborhood in this situation, even today.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.
This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.
FWIW, I'm at
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.html
*
Tuesday, June
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
On 2010-12-19 at 20:44:21 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
The USPS monopoly on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
Like JC said, the Private Express statutes prevent you from being a
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
The private sector (FedEx/UPS, etc...) brought us overnight delivery
where USPS couldn't...
...and next-day air
...and freight delivery
...and package tracking that reports more than just We don't know where it
is/It's at the post office
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over night
from across the country while letting you track it's progress?
Trouble is, now they
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Dec 20 15:01:07
2010
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:00:22 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
--fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:28:06 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd=
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
When was the last time
On 12/17/10 12:08 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
George Bonser wrote:
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO subscriber?
The municipality gets a cut of that in a profit sharing agreement. The point
was, everyone gets their tax or toll along the way.
Dave, perhaps you would be kind
The franchise fees in many markets are based on gross revenue. 5% is a
fairly standard percentage charged by municipalities to cable companies
for right of way access, etc. Not sure if I would call this a profit
sharing plan, but it's not too much of a stretch. Today with local
agreements
In a message written on Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:16:27PM -0500, William Allen
Simpson wrote:
That would be against the law in Michigan. And I've never heard of any
cable company revealing its profits on a per municipality basis
Google finds some:
On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
They have been granted a monopoly by the local government for
wireline services, and in exchange for that monopoly need to act
in the public's interest. In the TV world this is things like
running the local community interest channel, and paying a
Google finds some:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7364
The Franchise Agreement requires ATT to pay the City $0.88 per
residential subscriber per month to maintain and enhance PEG access
services provided by MPAC. ATT has chosen to pass this $0.88 fee on
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level playing field, not by allowing one company to buy a monopoly
enforced by men with
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to the end user. But that would take
a
lot of work to
In a message written on Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields
wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame government
regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a level playing
field, not by allowing one company to buy a monopoly enforced
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level playing field, not by allowing one
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to the end user.
SE
On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project?
Because they'd have to dig up the streets, people's yards, etc. to do it.
There really are some natural
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a month so there can be true competition in end-user services.
Take a second and
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:12:02PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
they may be onto
On 12/19/10 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level
one of the most interesting things about coming to Australia (after working in
the USA telecom industry for 20 years) was the opportunity to see such a
proposal (the NBN) put into practice. who knows if the NBN will be quite what
everyone hopes, but the premise is sound, the last mile is a
Once upon a time, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
50 - it simply won't make financial sense for additional players to try
I believe that 'competition' in the last mile is a red herring that
simply maintains the status quo (which for many broadband consumers is
woefully inadequate). I agree with you that the USA has too many
lobbyists to ever put such a proposal in place, the telecoms in a
large
number of
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
