[133995] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Dec 21 10:52:49 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <32850415.81292928152372.JavaMail.root@jennyfur.pelican.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:49:34 -0800
To: Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>=20
> ----- "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
>> higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the =
physical
>> plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to =
the
>> physical plant to higher level service providers on an equal footing.
>=20
> To all intents and purposes what we have in the UK. BT, the old, =
formally government-owned, then privatised, effective last-mile =
monopoly, was split up. (I believe in return for some more government =
cash to build infrastructure, but I could be wrong on the order of =
events).
>=20
> BT OpenReach is now responsible for wires on poles / in the ground, CO =
space etc, and has to sell access to these to other divisions of BT =
(Wholesale, Residential) in the same arms-length way they sell them to =
other ISPs. It doesn't always work *quite* like that, especially in =
respect of actually getting space and power in COs, but the framework is =
there...
>=20
> Regards,
> Tim.
Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a prohibition =
of common ownership
or management. Essentially, require that the stock be split and each =
current owner receives
one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than 3% of =
the companies
having 180 days to divest from one company or the other, or, reduce =
their total investment in
both below 3% with a requirement that the infrastructure provider not =
retain any portion
of the name of the original company and no relationship other than =
supplier to the service
provider company.
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too =
powerful a
lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best thing for the =
consumers.
Owen
