Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Jeffrey S. Young young at jsyoung.net
Mon Dec 20 20:00:54 UTC 2010


On 20/12/2010, at 1:22 PM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>> 
>> Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of players 1-5?  What if player two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on a speaking circuit, starts telling the market that his bandwidth demands are growing at the rate of 300% per year and players 6-10 jump into the market with strong financial backing?  While I believe in free-market economics and I will agree with you that the situation will eventually sort itself out; thousands of ditch-diggers and poll-climbers will lose their jobs, but this is "the way of things."
> 
> Apples and oranges.  The telcom bubble didn't involve building out *to the home*.  The cost to build a data center and put in modems or lease dry copper for DSL is dramatically lower than the cost to build out to the home.  It was financially feasible (even if not the best decision, especially if you based the decision on a provably false assumption on market growth) to be player 6 in the early days of the Internet, it's not financially feasible to be player 6 to build out fiber to the home.
>> I do  not agree that the end-consumer should be put through this fiasco and I am confident that the money spent digging more ditches and stringing more ugly overhead cables would be better spent on layers 3 and more importantly on services at layers 4-7.
> 
> The problem is getting fair access to layer 1 for all players.  If it takes breaking the monopoly rules for putting in layer 1 facilities to get past this log jam, then that may be the solution.
> 
>>  The utopian solution (pun intended) would be to develop a local, state, federal system of broadband similar to the highway system of roads.  Let those broadband providers who can compete by creating layer 3 backbones and services at layers 4-7 (and layer 1-2 with wireless) survive. Let the innovation continue at layers 4-7 without constant saber-rattling from the layer 1-2 providers.
> 
> But how do we GET there?  I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own the layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws and policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer 1 facilities to the customer's location.
>> And as a byproduct we can stop the ridiculous debate on Net Neutrality which is molded daily by telecom lobbyists.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice.  But where's a feasible path to this ultimate goal?
> 
> jc
> 
> 

the point of the bubble analogy had more to do with poor speculation driving poor investments than it had to do with the nature of the build outs.  I don't really think it would be far-fetched to see it happen again in broadband (perhaps in a better economy), but then it's only my opinion, everyone has them.

the deeper point I was trying to make:  all of this (the market evolution) has a detrimental effect on the Internet-consuming public and while the rest of world leads the USA in broadband deployment (pick any category) we debate, lag, and are currently driving policies that only further the patchwork of deployment and ineffective service we already have.

jy



More information about the NANOG mailing list