DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Duopoly
Is creating a state endorsed duopoly really good? It may make sense to allow telcos to do video, but it makes no sense to lock all other competitors out of the broadband market, as the FCC has done with it's elimination of the wholesale market.
Will a duopoly behave much better than a monopoly? This is one step forward and two steps backward.
-Dane |
|
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
| It was a trade off.
There's allot of farming communities and to get them "up to speed" the state made a deal the the death star. Now the question is will the empire change the deal and leave a garrison of solders behind. 
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DaneJasper
I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| said by openbox9  :I understand where you're coming from Dane, but the "success" in this situation, was due to state legislation and franchise reform, not the easing of the wholesale market by the FCC, which a different topic that has been bantered to death around here. Competition is what's been killed by the FCC. I understand that the state believes that they've created some new competition in TV by allowing the telco to deliver video, but my point was that it's just more steps down a road the US shouldn't be on.
-Dane |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to DaneJasper
How does this amount to a state-endorsed duopoly? The 2006 Telecom Reform Act, from what I can tell, doesn't say that just AT&T can enter the video market. All it does it make it a whole lot easier for new companies to get franchising. Before, anybody who wanted to provide video service had to deal with greedy municipal officials who demand a chunk of profits. Now, laying new wire in public rights of way is less expensive because you only have to deal with the state government.
Just because AT&T has been the biggest benefactor of this law so far doesn't mean we have a duopoly by any means, unless there is some reason why a third company couldn't enter the market by obtaining a statewide franchise in Indiana. Plus, isn't two video providers still better than one choice-the cable company? |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| The duopoly I'm referring to is the cable and telco - as created by the FCC's forbearance decisions with regards to the requirement to wholesale next generation and today's DSL networks.
The state's video franchise just makes it easier for AT&T to deliver video over this network. My point is that the elimination of competition in wireline Internet access will not likely prove to be good for consumers in the long run, as it creates simply two competitors where previously there were thousands across the country.
Here's some thought on where we're headed, from: »www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a27bdb16-5ecd···340.html
"The US is facing a competitive crisis in broadband deployment. Yet as it continues to fall behind its competitors, the Federal Communications Commission continues to live in denial. The more it has “deregulated” telecommunications, the worse (comparatively) broadband competition and service have become. When it was 10th in the world George W. Bush, US president, said that “10th is 10 spots too low”. The nation is now 16th. Broadband in the US is 12 times the price in Japan and six times the price in France."
See also: »www.ectaportal.com/en/upload/Fil···inal.pdf
"Countries with the highest levels of broadband penetration in Europe were mostly characterised by strong competition through a combination of local loop unbundling and cable. Lower ranked countries often lacked significant unbundling competition."
My only point is that with the FCC's decisions to block competitive access to AT&T and Verizon's networks, they've signed the death warrants of many competitive ISPs, and that this will not serve consumers will in the long term.
-Dane |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DaneJasper
Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| said by openbox9 :Maybe I would see things differently if I was a CEO of an ISP providing DSL using an ILEC's last mile infrastructure, but I don't see competition beings killed by the FCC. You can't say that competition has been killed off by the FCC and then turn around and say that states have created new competition. Ya, that's sort of my point. The state is saying that they've created competition in video by making franchise easier - but the whole concept has come at the expense of competition in DSL and cable. I see this as less competition, but the state says there is more. In a narrow segment (TV) there is one new entrant, while there is a huge sucking sound in the broadband access area that everyone is ignoring.
-Dane |
|
