Hi, Mike - I don't really have any bias on the questions of regulation, deregulation, and government intervention.
I make the observation that the FCC seems to be more reactionary than other regulatory bodies, which are, or try to be, anticipatory. That is only a personal view; I'm sure that knowledgeable others would contradict me.
The purpose of regulation, or deregulation, IMO, is to provide a good business case for the implementation of the best possible technology in telecomms.
But, look at the success of the 'foot-dragging strategy', and not only in the US. In the UK, the interminable delays in opening access to broadband have provoked howls of outrage, directed at BT and the British government.
My point is: as long as the incumbents have physical ownership of, and the responsibility of maintenance for, last mile switching/addressing, then everybody else will get table scraps: some more, some less.
You will never be able to achieve the ideal, which is to access anyone, anywhere, with a big fat pipe that will do it all. Not unless the incumbents provide it: so what 'monopoly' is being eliminated?
The incumbents have a de facto monopoly, even when they are "deregulated" de jure.
In Canada, as others (cable, wireless) fight for table scraps, the rates the incumbents charge to maintain last mile switching/addressing/connectivity start to approach larceny.
What I'm trying to say is, until that monopoly is broken, in fact, deregulation, regulation, whatever, is just a sham. At the very least, incumbents will continue their extortion and foot-dragging, claiming declining revenues, and costs of maintenance.
The incumbents hold one end of the bridge, the only bridge that counts: guaranteed access to the customer.
Regards,
Jim |
