This is from Bill St. Arnaud's CANet3 webletter. Some good thoughts on the notion of facilities based competition, as opposed to forced resale, and a worthwhile read by Wharton's Professor Gerald Faulhaber: rider.wharton.upenn.edu [which is also referenced below].
In sixteen pdf pages you get a rare summarization of the history of competition in the telecoms industry and various views of monopoly structures, while providing a perspective on the possibilities afforded - and the hurdles presented - by facilities based competition. Notably, Faulhaber alludes to wireless and cable alternatives to existing ILEC services in several parts of his paper, similar to what I suggested yesterday on the ATHM thread:
Message 17132521
Where have I heard this argument about pole attachments and conduits, before? I wonder ;)
FAC
===
For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical
Internet program web site at canet3.net
-------------------------------------------
[from Dave Farber's IPer list - bsa]
For the record, I agree with Gerry on this one (and have even when I was
at the FCC) with the possible addition of requiring equal terms for new
entrants to gain access to pole space and existing conduit space.
Dave
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <faulhabe@wharton.upenn.edu>
To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
"Congress' intent to open up local competition to the RBOCs via resale,
while certainly well-intentioned, was never going to work, and guess
what? It hasn't, despite herculean efforts by the FCC and state
regulators. After 5 years of intense regulatory pressure to make it
happen, coupled with the telecoms bubble when investors were literally
throwing money at CLECs/DLECs with stupid business plans, penetration
remains a mere 8 1/2% of lines, almost all of which are business. This
bill will change this very little; it just means the RBOCs won't have to
worry about it, at least for DSL.
"I don't buy the argument that new services should come under new rules;
the whole argument about monopoly control has been the RBOCs control of
the local loop (access line) as a bottleneck facility. It isn't a
service, it's a facility. Therefore, I *do* buy the argument (advanced by
Verizon's Tauke) that new *facilities* should come under new rules. As
long as the RBOCs are not leveraging their bottleneck local loop, then
forcing them to share facilities (such as new optical networks) makes no
sense at all and definitely hinders new investment. If it's economical
for them to put it in, it's economical for anyone to do so; where's the
bottleneck? [fac - emphasis mine]
"Force sharing of the local loop? Not a very good idea [ exception djf],
but if you insist .... Force sharing of new optical networks, unrelated
to the local loop? Really bad idea. Let's encourage the RBOCs to do
seriously new investment by shedding old-investment legacy regulation.
"For those of you who would like to believe that if only we worked a little
harder we could force the Bells to really open up their local loops at
"reasonable" prices, take a look at my paper,
rider.wharton.upenn.edu .
"Professor Gerald Faulhaber <http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~faulhabe>
Business and Public Policy Department
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104"
----------------
For archives see:
interesting-people.org
[FAC: Thanks, Bill.] |
