[133951] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey S. Young)
Mon Dec 20 15:01:08 2010
In-Reply-To: <4D0F9ED9.4080002@gmail.com>
From: "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:00:54 -0500
To: JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 20/12/2010, at 1:22 PM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>>=20
>> Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes yo=
u believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of p=
layers 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 g=
rowing at the rate of 300% per year and players 6-10 jump into the market wi=
th strong financial backing? While I believe in free-market economics and I=
will agree with you that the situation will eventually sort itself out; tho=
usands of ditch-diggers and poll-climbers will lose their jobs, but this is "=
the way of things."
>=20
> 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 copp=
er 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 b=
ased the decision on a provably false assumption on market growth) to be pla=
yer 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 a=
nd I am confident that the money spent digging more ditches and stringing mo=
re ugly overhead cables would be better spent on layers 3 and more important=
ly on services at layers 4-7.
>=20
> The problem is getting fair access to layer 1 for all players. If it take=
s breaking the monopoly rules for putting in layer 1 facilities to get past t=
his log jam, then that may be the solution.
>=20
>> The utopian solution (pun intended) would be to develop a local, state, f=
ederal system of broadband similar to the highway system of roads. Let thos=
e broadband providers who can compete by creating layer 3 backbones and serv=
ices 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 p=
roviders.
>=20
> But how do we GET there? I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own th=
e layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws and poli=
cies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer 1 facilitie=
s to the customer's location.
>> And as a byproduct we can stop the ridiculous debate on Net Neutrality wh=
ich is molded daily by telecom lobbyists.
>=20
> Yes, that would be nice. But where's a feasible path to this ultimate goa=
l?
>=20
> jc
>=20
>=20
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 do=
n'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 t=
hem.
the deeper point I was trying to make: all of this (the market evolution) h=
as a detrimental effect on the Internet-consuming public and while the rest o=
f world leads the USA in broadband deployment (pick any category) we debate,=
lag, and are currently driving policies that only further the patchwork of d=
eployment and ineffective service we already have.
jy=
