Dave: With all the confusion onboard in regards to peer partners, FNET's timing is just what the Doc ordered. Look for a strong presence in Relationships with FNET.
I have recently figured out, no real brainer here...that the RBOC's are preparing for competitive local access by basically letting their networks "go to hell". Why?
Lets just say that the RBOC's are very concerned about the Switched Voice Network. In other words, while competitive access is tied up in courts, the RBOC's have essentially ceased investing in their networks and that not doing so will only make the "Internet Voice" become increasingly more unreliable.
The RBOC's as I have said in the past have just like: " Bell Atlantic posted" that ISPs were unfairly tying up the voice switches in telco central offices across the US, and threatening the very utility of the switched circuit voice network.
I mentioned UUNET, which was a provider for FNET.
Basically in March, UUNET began sending a series of amazingly clear and at the same time totally cryptic e-mail messages to at least a dozen, and perhaps as many as 30 small backbones and ISP, NOTIFYING them of their intention to discontinue peering at verious dates in the late May and early June. They did allude to the fact that they might be willing to negotiate something if the ISP signed a FIVE YEAR non-disclosure agreement that would require a total frontal "lobotomy" to really be effective as worded. They could not actually say the word "internet" in public for five years or they have infringed it. Nuf Said! B@st@rds.
All the secrecy surrounds proposal for these backones to pay as much as $24,000 per month for peering at a Network Access Point. So, they basically intended to convert competing small backbones to customers or disconnect from them. But not Frank!!! gggg
Remember the Free Ride is Over I posted a few weeks back in relations to UUNET? Read on.
The number of "backbones" on the Internethas grown from about nine about a year ago, to now around 30 today. Many of these have not made the investment dollar amount that UUNET has made and nor have the customer base.
UUNET see's this as hysteria "those shakey bones" whispering to them that if they say anything, there will be no negotiation for "peering", clark.net , those poor shakey bones have no where to go.
So, if the game is to be let the big fish eat the little fish, we rather immediately see that UUNET and PSINET aren't any of the big fish. Internet MCI is roughly TWICE the size of UUNET and Sprint IP Services is half again larger than UUNET. PSINET doesn't even break the 1 percent market share here.
***Now what immediately becomes obvious is that if UUNET's move is successful, and the smaller backbones ARE squeezed out of the game, there is only one next most obvious move for internet MCI and Sprint-and it does not bode well for PSI or UUNET. (eat'm-up)
UUNET may derive some comfort from the fact that they were bought by MFS, who was in turn purchased by WorldComm, but it won't help much.
There is no love lost at the higher levels between MCI and Sprint **towards WorldComm.**
Whatever the network architects participation at this point might be, if the UUNET move works, its liable to come down from the TOP and do the same thing to UUNET/PSI.
The funny thing about all of this is that we know there is a customer at every price level corporate and so on. If thereare only a few backbones left, say 5 or 6, then this will probably drop the prices anyway. Eliminating the smaller backbones won't do much to pricing unless you have a pretty firm plan to cooperate on prices among the backbones that are left. ""And there just is no honor amoung thieves.""
Here's another example of blame/not understanding the 96 act. The FCC is clearly going to have a tough time implementing it.
News Today:
"Long Distance Carrier Says Pacific Bell Stifles Competition"
CalTech International Corp. has filed a complaint against
Pacific Bell in the United States District Court, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and state law claims. The suit follows an earlier complaint filed against Pacific Bell by CalTech International, AT&T [NYSE:T], MCI [NASDAQ:MCIC], and other long distance companies last January.
According to the complaint, which asks for treble damages and injunctive relief, Pacific Bell "enjoyed a monopoly of local exchange telephone service" as the largest local exchange carrier in California until 1996."
Under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the complaint notes "local exchange service was opened to competition, allowing consumers a choice of providers at potentially lower prices with more product choices."
The complaint also notes that starting in March 1, 1996, CalTech International Telecom, along with other carriers, such as AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and GTE were allowed by the California Public Utilities Commission to start resale operation of local exchange services within California.
"Since that time, Pacific Bell has frustrated CalTech International Telecom and other carriers in their attempts to offer their service and compete by a series of practices calculated to divert customers," the complaint alleges, noting that "this is evidenced by formal complaints filed by AT&T, MCI and Sprint with the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). CalTech International Telecom is filing the lawsuit, according to the complaint, "seeking a level playing field on which to compete and offer its services" and "seeks the open competitive free marketplace the Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised."
Responding to the suit, Pacific Bell spokesperson Michael Runzler told Newsbytes the complaint "is absolutely not true. We're facing more competition now than ever before, have no backlog of orders, and we're providing service to companies seeking to enter the local telephone market faster than any other Bell company."
Runzler said "it doesn't make sense" for Pacific Bell to stifle local telephone competition, noting that "we need to facilitate local
competition in order to get into the long distance market" as mandated by the FCC.
Runzler suggested that the CalTech International suit, as with the earlier suit, "is a strategy designed to keep Pacific Bell out of the long distance market as long as possible."
A level playing field, Runzler told Newsbytes, "would be for long
distance and local telephone companies to enter each other's markets at the same time."
My guess is that the FCC will now try and stay away from the mess and let it play out now that the playing field is rolling terrain and not the foothills of Mount Everest.
btw...Frank had this figured out way before time began. gggg
Can you imagine what the Big Bones would pay for the technology Franklin has? We'll set the record straight in 98
Hi-Temp' |
