[86682] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blaine Christian)
Mon Nov 14 13:13:47 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0511141130360.27855@clifden.donelan.com>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Blaine Christian <blaine@blaines.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:13:04 -0500
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>> In message <Pine.GSO.
>> 4.58.0511141103370.27792@clifden.donelan.com>, Sean Donela
>> n writes:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
>>>> We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself
>>>> very
>>>> well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a
>>>> single
>>>> carrier are becoming the only options. I would not count a 500ms
>>>> satellite hop as an option <grin>.
>>>
>>> The cable industry claims 97% of the households passed in the
>>> US. Why
>>> don't you consider it an option?
>>>
>> Do they claim to pass 97% with two-way cable?
>
> The cable industry claims 91% of households passed with two-way cable.
>
Let's change this just a bit. How about FFTH/DSL OR Cable. The
point was that it is usually two options. Oligopoly is nearly as bad
as Monopoly you know <grin>.
