connectivity issues

[rhofland at fastdial.net (Randall Hofland)]

>From what I've seen there is actually more competition in the fat pipes than
we might be otherwise expect or believe, perhaps even oversaturation in many
metro areas, and I suspect that is key to the growth of competition at the
local level. What may be the most dangerous monopoly is one that controls the
fat pipes and most of the local networks and so far no one really seems to
dominate that in most much less all areas. ATT may be striving to do so but
seems to suffer many miscues, yet I encourage the effort since in the end I
suspect no single transmission medium can dominate.

My issue with ISP options in New Hampshire is the same as for the rest of the
nation: few areas have anything even approximating competition for fast
connections. Without competition there will be little evolution much less low
prices for fast speeds. And I suspect that the best way to deal with that is
to ensure that the fat pipes are widespread as well as open and cost
effective for all (thus regulated to some degree). Let the rivers flow freely
and take the water you need (carefully of course!). I do also suspect that
the states or feds will need to step in to assure that fat pipes run to rural
areas as needed even if that means urban areas subsidize the installation of
those lines.

Derek Martin wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 07:37:33PM -0400, Don Olivier wrote:
>
> > The message I take from Odlyzko's paper is that many of the
> > "connectivity issues" that trouble us today are consequences of the
> > desperate struggles of people facing the possible collapse of their
> > business models, and therefore won't last forever.  That's reassuring if
> > you take the long view; and it might even help with short term tactics,
> > by suggesting good places to stick our needles.
>
> I'd like to be able to believe that...  The problem, as I see it, is
> that AT&T seems to be rapidly becoming monopolistic in the Internet
> service arena.  As I understand it, they have one of the largest
> international dial-up services (though AOL is much larger, as everyone
> knows), they pretty much own the cable Internet market, and own a
> large percentage of the Internet backbone infrastructure.
>
> A lot of the eqipment is the same equipment they have used to provide
> telephone service.  AT&T has leveraged its assets from previous
> monopoly business activities to give themselves a dominant position in
> the ISP business.  For a newcomer to compete with them, they would
> need to either already have huge cash resources, or make a capital
> investment of a size that would almost guarantee they would not be
> profitable for decades.
>
> AT&T scares me...
>
> And your local telephone provider is in much the same position
> w/regard to DSL service.  They generally own the lines that their
> competition will be using, so you're dependent on them one way or
> another.  It's practically impossible for a competitor to undercut
> their prices, because they have to lease resources from their the very
> people they are competing against, and depend upon them to maintain
> those resources in good working order.  Just ask Covad how easy it is
> to compete with that!
>
> I've actually heard stories of Verizon stealing pairs from a
> competitor's existing DSL connection in order to satisfy orders.
> I can't say how true they are...
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Derek Martin          |   Unix/Linux geek
> ddm at pizzashack.org    |   GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
> Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
>
> -
> Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
> "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
> message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).

-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).