Mike, you sure ask some questions that are hard to answer [g]
>>Let me put my question another way, in regards to the likes of Qwest......let's say the FCC does rewrite the Telecom Act. ... [so that] it is so well written, that it is totally the current long distance telcos choice on how to go local, and the current local telcos choice on how to go long distance.<<
I think that your hypothesis ignores some of the infrastructure issues that would have to be put in place in order to make these capabilities exist. Not every Local Company [especially the smaller ones] has access today to every Long Distance. And vice versa. Facilities-based hubs [cross-connects and router exchange points, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of miles of additional fiber] would need to be created and placed in all of their POPs with trunks to all of the others.
Taken to extremes, this model would exemplify why having only one carrier would make the most sense from a purely architectural and design perspective, economies of scale being what they are, but that would defy the other merits and the advantages of a competitive market place.
>>If I'm not mistaken, Qwest recently just cut a deal with two telecoms (ILECs), got the contracts signed, did advertising, got customers, and was all set to start long distance service for the ILECs and the FCC killed it dead. So what are the options for local telcos to go long distance? Isn't Qwest (or others like QWST) TAILOR MADE for carrying traffic for current ILECs, long distance?<<
QWST is a good example of what I'm talking about. With their planned 16,000 mile macro net, or whatever it is they call it, they would only pass a handful of all existing local operators' facilities, in relative terms. But getting to your question in the latter part,
>> Isn't Qwest (or others like QWST) TAILOR MADE for carrying traffic for current ILECs, long distance?<<
...the answer would be yes for those companies who were in their path, but "no" or at least no, not yet, for all others, until they were ubiquitous to the point where it would be economically feasible for all local telcos to access them.
Only one company in the past has ever had that kind of presence in relative terms, "with its own facilities," and that was the original T, until it disintegrated. Looking at this from another perspective, though, the Internet has now been fully launched [or at least that is the general perception] and it serves as a virtual overlay model that can replace the physical facilities model in a virtual way, with far more coverage than T ever had. The trick is, however, how to harness it in such a way that you can use it with equal levels of assurance and predictability. We are not there yet.
Opening the markets through total and unqualified deregulation, as you suggest, will force the hands of every player to extend themselves to as many reaches as they can. In so doing there would be a form of test taking place that would result in only the fittest surviving, i.e., the classic Darwinian shakeout. This is the kind of precipitous situation that current regulations, either wittingly or unwittingly, are actually preventing right now, IMO.
In a perverse kind of way, this would not *promote* the cause of competition, necessarily, but IMO, it might actually work against it... if the total number of players in a relatively free market is the measure of competition's success. IOW, even though it appears that deregulation is moving too slowly to foster technological innovations and the cause for further competition, this form of apparent foot-dragging may very well be serving the furtherance of competition's cause in the end.
All one need do to test this theory is to envision what a BEL or a T would do, if they were left to their own devices without any regulations hovering over them to suppress their appetites. You don't have to stretch the imagination for this, all you need do is pay attention to what they are trying to do now, while they are under regulations. Comments welcome...
Regards, Frank Coluccio
ps - in case Ken P. is looking in, I really did have to leave earlier, but the Sammy Sousa parade at Battery Park caused me to lose my transportation [grid lock] to an earlier dinner appopintment before the concert. The Internet is not the only thing that lacks predictability ;-) |
