> 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

> 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).