3 ms·
>Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerab
by crdoconnor 9y ago
>Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network
This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerable to voters rather than taxpayers (the exception being when the privatization playbook is being followed: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-privatization-playbook-make-an-agency-perform-badly-by-underfunding-it.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... ).
- erentz 9y agoI would prefer the wholesale network to be owned by the communities or states but I don’t see it being a completely necessary starting point. For example it would be relatively simple to craft a law that requires this split for all such telecommunications access networks regardless of existing or new builds or cable vs copper vs fiber. Immediately that would level the playing field because Comcast has to sell access on its network to itself at the same price it sells it to another ISP.
- techsupporter 9y agoWe did craft a law: Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.
- rayiner 9y agoThe implementation of the unbundling rules was "disastrous" (according to the center-left Brookings Institute: www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt, see slide 3). Unbundling can work, but requires a steady hand in setting rates. The FCC said "screw telcos" and set rates very low, which made telecos basically give up on improving their DSL infrastructure. In contrast, unbundling has worked well in the U.K. There, the government put in place a rate structure that allowed BT OpenReach (the entity that owns all the phone lines) to actually be comparable in profitability to Comcast or TWC.