3 ms·

> if a business that connects people to people—such as a social network, an instant messenger, etc.—grows larger than X users, it could be required to allow ful

> if a business that connects people to people—such as a social network, an instant messenger, etc.—grows larger than X users, it could be required to allow fully-featured third-party clients to exist I might get some of the details wrong, but AT&T was forced to let smaller ISPs or telcos into their exchanges so they could set up equipment and act as an independent ISP on AT&T's copper. This wasn't huge win for small ISPs; AT&T still got most of the DSL orders, and it had a rough time competing with cable.

toast0 6y ago
Line shared DSL had a lot of problems in the US, but it worked well overseas. For one, AT&T got most of the orders because their retail prices were often lower (sometimes quite a bit lower) than the wholesale prices they charged to smaller ISPs. It's really hard to compete like that. Add in fun things like initially line shared services were often over dry pair (no dial tone) and telephone company lineman often used dial tone to see if a pair was in use; leading to loss of service if a pair was repurposed for another customer. The alternative for small ISPs was somehow find a way to overbuild a 3rd network in the area, or sell out to Earthlink, or to someone who sold out to Earthlink.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  They never should have let the same company own the wire and provide retail service. The retail part of AT&T should have had to pay the same rates to the wire owner as everyone else. And penalties should have been applied to the lineman's employer if they caused a loss of service without properly checking the database of the wire owner company. Alas, as you say, that's not how it happened.
  - worker767424 6y ago
    As much as people like to talk up the AT&T breakup, it wasn't all that effective because it just created regional monopolies with the silly local/long distance split. Splitting up network companies and retailers might have been more interesting, but there's still the issue of having a monopoly on the last mile of copper.
strogonoff 6y ago
It can be different (better) in case of social—I don’t think forcing the largest player to let competitors use its infrastructure is required.

toast0 6y ago

Line shared DSL had a lot of problems in the US, but it worked well overseas. For one, AT&T got most of the orders because their retail prices were often lower (sometimes quite a bit lower) than the wholesale prices they charged to smaller ISPs. It's really hard to compete like that. Add in fun things like initially line shared services were often over dry pair (no dial tone) and telephone company lineman often used dial tone to see if a pair was in use; leading to loss of service if a pair was repurposed for another customer. The alternative for small ISPs was somehow find a way to overbuild a 3rd network in the area, or sell out to Earthlink, or to someone who sold out to Earthlink.

jkaplowitz 6y ago
They never should have let the same company own the wire and provide retail service. The retail part of AT&T should have had to pay the same rates to the wire owner as everyone else. And penalties should have been applied to the lineman's employer if they caused a loss of service without properly checking the database of the wire owner company. Alas, as you say, that's not how it happened.
- worker767424 6y ago
  As much as people like to talk up the AT&T breakup, it wasn't all that effective because it just created regional monopolies with the silly local/long distance split. Splitting up network companies and retailers might have been more interesting, but there's still the issue of having a monopoly on the last mile of copper.

strogonoff 6y ago

It can be different (better) in case of social—I don’t think forcing the largest player to let competitors use its infrastructure is required.