3 ms·

I know at one point the US had a somewhat similar arrangement for telephone lines. All the offspring of AT&T (ILECs in industry slang, Incumbent Local Exchange

I know at one point the US had a somewhat similar arrangement for telephone lines. All the offspring of AT&T (ILECs in industry slang, Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers IIRC) were required to lease their lines to competitors. So someone could offer DSL internet and use the phone company's infrastructure to do it. I don't know if that's still the case, I would guess so. But I don't think it ever applied to cable.

maxerickson 13y ago
I ran into a situation where for roughly the same price (the new via SBC) AT&T offered unlimited local calling and the lessee companies did not.
jmj42 13y ago
It is still the case. It's called Local Loop Unbundling (LLU). LLU accompanied common carrier deregulation in the late nineties. The rules have changed a bit over the years (favoring ILECs) and at's a little more difficult for a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) to get up and running today than it was in, say, 2000, but the rules are still in place. LLU has been somewhat successful in increasing competition in larger metro areas, though not so much in smaller rural areas There's still significant start-up cost associated with starting a CLEC, and LLU only gives CLECs access to the CO and local loop infrastructure. As an example, a few years back, I was living in San Jose and my internet/telephone was provided by a CLEC at about 1/2 the cost of the ILEC (verizon) who owned the lines. I've long thought that LLU applied to cable could provide the same sort of benefit. Since the "local loop" in most cases was subsidized (much like the ILEC situation), then the loss associated with LLU is minimal. It allows for increased competition, without forcing it, and gives the opportunity for increased consumer pressure to (because of additional competition) increase speeds/lower costs.

3 ms·

I know at one point the US had a somewhat similar arrangement for telephone lines. All the offspring of AT&T (ILECs in industry slang, Incumbent Local Exchange

by breischl 13y ago

maxerickson 13y ago
I ran into a situation where for roughly the same price (the new via SBC) AT&T offered unlimited local calling and the lessee companies did not.
jmj42 13y ago
It is still the case. It's called Local Loop Unbundling (LLU). LLU accompanied common carrier deregulation in the late nineties. The rules have changed a bit over the years (favoring ILECs) and at's a little more difficult for a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) to get up and running today than it was in, say, 2000, but the rules are still in place. LLU has been somewhat successful in increasing competition in larger metro areas, though not so much in smaller rural areas There's still significant start-up cost associated with starting a CLEC, and LLU only gives CLECs access to the CO and local loop infrastructure. As an example, a few years back, I was living in San Jose and my internet/telephone was provided by a CLEC at about 1/2 the cost of the ILEC (verizon) who owned the lines. I've long thought that LLU applied to cable could provide the same sort of benefit. Since the "local loop" in most cases was subsidized (much like the ILEC situation), then the loss associated with LLU is minimal. It allows for increased competition, without forcing it, and gives the opportunity for increased consumer pressure to (because of additional competition) increase speeds/lower costs.