Elections: Too late for telecom

3 thoughts on “Elections: Too late for telecom”

  1. If one is confined to the limited scope of the FCC and Telecom then, I agree. But not without the acknowledgement that the real MASTERS of the FCC is the Broadcast TV industry.

    So from a taxpayer perspective the telco’s are amatuers, since they actually ponied up ten’s of billions of dollars, and the Broadcasters enjoy a magical carpet ride.

    The showdown between these two industries will be fun to watch.

    Who will co-opt who?

  2. Om – You are a dimwit. To force the incumbents to serve up their infrastructure for those that want something for nothing (CLEC’s) is ridiculous. There is nothing preventing them from laying their own fiber/infrastructure – but guess what – they don’t have a business case. Why should the incumbents give up their infrastrcture for those without the cash? It is like forcing McDonalds to sell Burger King Whoppers because they can’t afford to build a store across the street…

  3. Brentis,

    Om isn’t a dimwit, just one of those people who believe that the competition should be at the end points of the network, not at the wires to the edge.

    This means that we have price competition by allowing companies to leach off of existing infrastructure instead of investing to add new infrastructure. This doesn’t mean that we have much in the way of new services or service options, just slightly lower prices and much reduced profits, preventing any new wires from being built.

    I believe that the competion should be at the new wire level, with multiple sources of broadband connectivity, either wired or wireless. Forcing connectivity supplier to sublet their investment at preset rates removes any incentive to invest. The recent FCC rulings reducing the RBOCs sharing requirements is leading to massive new investment and real triple play competition for the MSOs for the first time.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.