3 ms·

The Telecom Act of 1996 started the current mess. I argue it was partly responsible for the dotcom bust. It killed the incentive to create broadband, and the in

by jrh3 3y ago

The Telecom Act of 1996 started the current mess. I argue it was partly responsible for the dotcom bust. It killed the incentive to create broadband, and the internet without broadband is not that useful. It's a regulatory mess.

joecool1029 3y ago
You're probably being unfairly downvoted by people associating this act with the CDA but you're absolutely right. That act basically killed the booming industry for last-mile fiber by forcing the incumbent companies to lease out last mile access. Fast forward a few more years to 2004, the startups that put those lines in are gone and the incumbents won the ability to stop leasing most of their infra out: https://web.archive.org/web/20160818001129/http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/toolkit/notes/PracticeNote/2895 https://web.archive.org/web/20160818001129/http://www.ictreg...
- tguvot 3y ago
  in Israel similar regulation created a bunch of ISP that were riding on infrastructure of the only incumbent telecom and cable companies. What resulted in lower prices for everybody without stalling upgrades of infrastructure. I got 2013 vdsl2 i think with 150/20 or something. Nowdays it's same with fiber deployment. In same way mobile companies got regulated what created a big market for mvnos what dropped prices by factor or 3-4. The problem not with unbundling but with how regulation was done and what loopholes it created (no idea what went down, but based on article many people spent a bunch of time in court fighting it). Though, my personal guess that incumbent telecom that were unbundled had also mobile businesses and decided to go for mobile broadband and just to let copper die. In Israel telecom/cable companies were forbidden from operating mobile network. As anecdote, after I moved to states I had a chat on some network conference with somebody who claimed that he is very liberal and was complaining about quality/price of broadband/mobile in USA. I suggested to do same reforms as in Israel to what he replied that this is extremely crazy approach.

by jrh3 3y ago

joecool1029 3y ago

You're probably being unfairly downvoted by people associating this act with the CDA but you're absolutely right. That act basically killed the booming industry for last-mile fiber by forcing the incumbent companies to lease out last mile access. Fast forward a few more years to 2004, the startups that put those lines in are gone and the incumbents won the ability to stop leasing most of their infra out: https://web.archive.org/web/20160818001129/http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/toolkit/notes/PracticeNote/2895 https://web.archive.org/web/20160818001129/http://www.ictreg...

tguvot 3y ago
in Israel similar regulation created a bunch of ISP that were riding on infrastructure of the only incumbent telecom and cable companies. What resulted in lower prices for everybody without stalling upgrades of infrastructure. I got 2013 vdsl2 i think with 150/20 or something. Nowdays it's same with fiber deployment. In same way mobile companies got regulated what created a big market for mvnos what dropped prices by factor or 3-4. The problem not with unbundling but with how regulation was done and what loopholes it created (no idea what went down, but based on article many people spent a bunch of time in court fighting it). Though, my personal guess that incumbent telecom that were unbundled had also mobile businesses and decided to go for mobile broadband and just to let copper die. In Israel telecom/cable companies were forbidden from operating mobile network. As anecdote, after I moved to states I had a chat on some network conference with somebody who claimed that he is very liberal and was complaining about quality/price of broadband/mobile in USA. I suggested to do same reforms as in Israel to what he replied that this is extremely crazy approach.