Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
From: Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred () dargo gwi net>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:31:53 -0400



Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many
municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  municipalities
Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets.

Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion?  I am
located in the US and thought you were talking about the US.

If so, I am confused.  What is exclusive about these agreements?
Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles
and complete directly with the cable companies?  I haven't seen a
modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked
other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video.

Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a
good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over
Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS
propagated.

BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be
aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and
the PSTN.  After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which
was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return.  The cable
network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed
a profit nor even solvency.  For that reason, the PSTN is more
arguably a public resource.

good luck,
fletcher


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault