[37199] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fletcher E Kittredge)
Mon May 7 12:35:31 2001
Message-Id: <200105071631.f47GVrp17142@smtp.gwi.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'Charles Sprickman'" <spork@inch.com>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net>,
"Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
of "Sun, 06 May 2001 23:41:33 PDT." <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E4594@condor.mhsc.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:31:53 -0400
From: Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred@dargo.gwi.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> 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
