SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions

Wed Nov 2 14:30:22 UTC 2005

On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

>
> the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
> statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.

You can pretty much s/the sbc/rboc/g in this context.  Leadership  
seems to believe that because those who conduct business over 'their'  
infrastructure aren't paying them a transaction fee, there's somehow  
something wrong with that model.  Fact is, they _are_ getting paid  
for their pipes, and they've never been part of the transaction model  
(aka tax collectors).  If you want to be something else, dump the  
pipes r us business model.  But then you can't have your cake and eat  
it, too.  Somehow, I'm very reminded of how the music industry has  
acted when faced with a disruptor.  Very classic threat reponse of  
somebody thinking like a mono/duo/whateverpartitionedmarketpoly.   
Sections in
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/business/2005-10-31- 
bellsouth-mergers_x.htm have publically confirmed similar thought  
patterns.  But then again, the CEO's of the companies mentioned here  
do look like twins separated at birth, with companies sharing very  
similar DNA (even though they all think they're very different).

So, my point being in response to what Randy wrote..  expect a lot  
more where that came from, especially as margins come under more  
pressure.  As long as they pretend disruption can be controlled or  
isn't happening, this will continue.  And one could argue that the  
recently approved mergers might fuel such attitudes.

Best regards,
Christian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051102/3adf84e1/attachment.html>