interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: IP: re Baby Bells Told To Expand High-speed Internet Service

  • From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
  • Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:29:47 -0700


>From: "Bob Frankston" <rmf2g2@bobf.Frankston.com>
>To: "Dave Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: FW: Baby Bells Told To Expand High-speed Internet Service
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:08:59 -0400
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>While I can appreciate the goal of increasing the availability of "High
>Speed Internet Services", I fear the result will be to establish an upper
>bound on deployment rather creating a vibrant marketplace.
>
>Most of the Bells have focused their service on DSL, which is an accidental
>by-product of their effort to create an alternative to Cable TV for
>Interactive Television. The result has been a focus on providing service
>only where there just happens to be existing copper that is short enough to
>meet a DSL specification. There has no urgency to extending service beyond
>the ability to salvage existing copper. This isn't to say there is no
>incentive at all -- a DSL line costs an IAP $20/month while the same copper
>might be $1/month as an "alarm wire".
>
>Since DSL is simply a way to reuse existing copper, you have the strange
>situation in which you can't get digital service (Internet connectivity)
>because you have digital service (fiber or ISDN). Where is the understanding
>the DSL is just one possible means for providing Internet connectivity
>rather than a reason to limit its availability?
>
>It seems unfair to grant the existing player the compelling advantage of
>being able to use their wires which were installed under regulatory
>protection for an entirely different purpose. Others must invest risk
>capital for building entirely new infrastructure.
>
>Given that a full time megabit connection is $30 to $50/month (Cable Modem
>"to-the-residence" speed) while the option to use a 64K channel for just
>voice is $30 (more or less depending on the service), the availability of
>the "high speed" connection should obviate the need for a special voice
>path. It seems short-sighted to grant companies whose primary business is
>threatened by the "High Speed Internet" the ability to set the pace for
>deployment.
>
>Bob Frankston
>http://www.frankston.com
>(or, more to the point
>http://www.frankston.com/public/essays/disconnect.asp)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com
>[mailto:owner-ip-sub-1@admin.listbox.com]On Behalf Of David Farber
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 20:19
>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>Subject: IP: Baby Bells Told To Expand High-speed Internet



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

</form>

Powered by eList eXpress LLC