Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
jra at baylink.com
Tue Dec 14 21:32:54 CST 2010
----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>
> If monopolies are needed in order to get service to an area, make them
> "last mile" wire monopolies that provide no content of their own and
> allow the content providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) provide
> service over the infrastructure on a competitive basis. Content
> monopolies tied to the infrastructure are bad for everyone and as
> existing monopoly agreements expire, more competition is entering the
> market. I would possibly compromise by saying a company willing to
> install the infrastructure could get a one-time monopoly for some
> period of time, after which the infrastructure is spun off as a separate
> company and opened up to competitive access.
That's the magic answer, right there, yes: fiber last-mile is a natural
monopoly, for a whole host of practicality reasons.
So, if we could repeal all the laws Verizon's FiOS division has gotten
passed forbidding municipalities from building last mile fiber, and renting
it to all comers on non-discriminatory terms, as you suggest, and encourage
them to do so -- as I strongly suspect is Google's planned end-game --
then we might see some more sanity in the IAP business.
I'd like to see a Jesus-load and a half more geographic locality of reference
on the backbone too -- my RoadRunner Tampa packets to FiOS Tampa
really ought not to have to go via *Dallas* on a regular basis -- but
I guess that part's a lost cause.
More information about the NANOG