Hi Mark,
Oh. That kind of sharing...
As I noted in another message to Ken De Paul, the term "sharing," when used in this space, can take on many different meanings.
Since you have pointed to the specific Reuters release, I now have a better feel for what you are looking for. And it may serve to further what I was saying before, in some ways.
While the article's conclusion is still speculative, they may be right. They may, but I, for one, am not sure about it at this time, and I'd need to see the actual wording in the ruling, the devils that telnet to one another in the details, before developing a more informed opinion. But I can speculate as to the potential issues and what some of the potential outcomes might be, too.
Getting back to your original question tho, concerning the motives behind any proactions by certain ILECs, it would depend on the subjective stance of any individual ILEC. To be sure, they have been known to diverge widely on such matters in the past, so it will likely result in different reactions on their individual parts (if the ruling does comes to pass), by each of them.
Sometimes it appears that the FCC comes out with what I like to call "point and click" or p&c, of decisions and rulings, borrowing from the mentality of sitting in front of the PC for too long. I'll leave it at that.
But this may be one such case, just like their almost complete avoidance in taking action to open up the Cable TV Operators' facilities. Now, there's an interesting contrast, wouldn't you say? When it comes to opening up the MSO's and ATHM's pipes they figuratively stick their heads in the sand. When it comes to the ILECs, they instead fetch for the cutlery.
I say that their pending decision appears to be p&c because I feel that they may not have thought it out completely. There are many potential complexities that could ensue behind the scenes in attempting to implement such offerings. The unwieldiness that could materialize vis a vis the number of upstarts who "want in" could be absolutely monumental. In order to discourage such outcomes, there would need to be some criteria set for who qualifies to get in on the action, and who does not. oi!
[[If the number of startups in such a scenario were to get high enough, I could envisage a new market sector wherein space is let in EXDS-like facilities for the carriers to bring their subscriber loops to, solely for the purpose of allowing add-on carriers to attach their wares. Stated only partially tongue in cheek. For, with fiber extension, this is altogether feasible. Then the startups could collectively pay their own rent in their own offices on a cooperative basis. Again, only partially tongue in cheek. Carrier hotels have already been formed around this principle, albeit not for DSL services, specifically.]]
In a message that Ray Jensen once posted a while back on the Last Mile Thread he referred to the chain-link fenced and passageways that make up today's colo spaces in central offices as "zoos." I wonder how Ray would characterize this proposed situation? Ray, you there?
I would very much welcome more comments and opinions from you and others here on this matter. What say?
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
