To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7841 ) 8/1/2000 11:30:47 AM From: lml Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12823 Good response, Mike. IMHO, you point out the benefits of competition along the last mile notwithstanding the "beauty" of a single transport mechanism along the same. Sometimes competition, like comedy, is not always pretty. But in the end, the consumer benefits. I, too, have questioned the relative wastefulness of having numerous platforms along the last mile since redundancy of aggregate capacity will be inevitable. Nevertheless, this "wastefulness" is part of the competitive market process, that in the long term create the most viable model for consumer. It is survival of the fittest, a economic form of Darwinism, which is painful during early ramp up stages & shortly thereafter as the several platforms battle it out for QoS and market share. But in the long run leading to a more enduring service to the marketplace. How many abandoned railroad or trolley tracks does one cross over in older portions of some communities that no longer serve those communities, or the local industries that once relied upon them? In some places these modes of transport still function, & even thrive. In others, they clearly have been abandoned. Local market forces will always dictate the success of one platform v. the other. I don't think telecom infrastructure will necessarily be that much different if we look to the "survival of the fittest" theory when it comes to serving more rural communities & consumers residing in comparatively rugged terrain. IMHO, free market forces allow the most appropriate platform to thrive where it is most suited. Regulation, in contrast, DICTATES, which platform is to be implemented.