3 ms·

Separating the layers doesn’t help because there will never be competing infrastructure at the last mile, or, if it happens, it is inefficient almost by definit

Separating the layers doesn’t help because there will never be competing infrastructure at the last mile, or, if it happens, it is inefficient almost by definition. There is nothing wrong with infrastructure owners also offering the other layer, as long as you mandate that they charge the same prices internally as they do externally, run separate books, and don’t cross-subsidize. Running the lines is a natural monopoly. Since digging ditches isn’t too complicated, there are a number of countries that have seen success with leaving this business in the hand of governments. As an alternative, you should be able to compare costs across time or geography, both domestic and international, and get a fairly good idea what it should cost, then set wholesale prices accordingly.

stormbrew 4y ago
> There is nothing wrong with infrastructure owners also offering the other layer, as long as you mandate that they charge the same prices internally as they do externally, run separate books, and don’t cross-subsidize. It seems a lot easier to require them to be separate companies than to invasively regulate them like this. If the infra side of it can’t be profitable then run it as a crown corp, or subsidize it, but asking companies to play games with their books is practically begging them to come up with the most creative way to bypass the intent. Accountants love puzzles. And i think this is borne out in history as well. Whether the Paramount Consent Decree or the breaking up of Bell, breaking up vertical integration works well until either new technology created new opportunities for integration (streaming) or they promise to be nice if they could have just a little integration, as a treat, and then shoved that wedge open as hard as they could (telecom).
throw0101a 4y ago
> Separating the layers doesn’t help because there will never be competing infrastructure at the last mile, or, if it happens, it is inefficient almost by definition. OSI Layers 1 and 2 should be either an independent non-profit corporation providing equal access to all Layer 3 plays, or a government-owned utility. Take the profit motive out of fibre infrastructure.

stormbrew 4y ago

> There is nothing wrong with infrastructure owners also offering the other layer, as long as you mandate that they charge the same prices internally as they do externally, run separate books, and don’t cross-subsidize. It seems a lot easier to require them to be separate companies than to invasively regulate them like this. If the infra side of it can’t be profitable then run it as a crown corp, or subsidize it, but asking companies to play games with their books is practically begging them to come up with the most creative way to bypass the intent. Accountants love puzzles. And i think this is borne out in history as well. Whether the Paramount Consent Decree or the breaking up of Bell, breaking up vertical integration works well until either new technology created new opportunities for integration (streaming) or they promise to be nice if they could have just a little integration, as a treat, and then shoved that wedge open as hard as they could (telecom).

throw0101a 4y ago

> Separating the layers doesn’t help because there will never be competing infrastructure at the last mile, or, if it happens, it is inefficient almost by definition. OSI Layers 1 and 2 should be either an independent non-profit corporation providing equal access to all Layer 3 plays, or a government-owned utility. Take the profit motive out of fibre infrastructure.