4 ms·

Public-utility "last mile", far from being opposed to competition, would facilitate it. The local or state government would own the ROW and maintain the fiber -

by ds9 12y ago

Public-utility "last mile", far from being opposed to competition, would facilitate it. The local or state government would own the ROW and maintain the fiber - maybe thru a contractor whose role is restricted to that function. Then your household or business line goes to a box where different companies can compete for slots/ports/whatever, and then you would choose which provider to connect you from there to the big pipes. The "to the premises" provider would make a regulated profit, just like utility-model water and power companies, and the upstream providers would pay the going rate for their connections to customers, and compete for customers with rates, policies and over-the-top services.

rayiner 12y ago
Having a "last mile" monopoly, either embodied in the municipal government or in a regulated utility like British Telecom, can work. However, ensuring that the monopoly has sufficient incentives to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure is complex. See this article which discusses the issues presented by the British Telecom privatization: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/1909801.pdf http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/1909801.pdf. While it's theoretically possible, it's not what the author actually suggests. He suggests forcing Comcast, TWC, etc, to simply lease out their networks wholesale to competitors. This destroys the incentive these companies have to continue to upgrade their networks. There is an obvious reason why the author advocates that approach instead of the one you suggest: state and local governments have no money, and are extremely inefficient at building infrastructure projects to begin with.
- arethuza 12y ago
  We recently moved back to using BT as an ISP with their Infinity 2 FTTC service and I have been very pleasantly surprised, both with the installation (which was very quick and painless) and the resulting service. It also looks like we might get full FTTP in the next year or so which will be even better. Worth noting that we had BT as an ISP years ago and they were awful so I was reluctant to switch back - but the seem to be making significant investments in their network and their customer services - as well as some pretty good add on offerings like their sports channels. What was most interesting is that Sky, he had bought the ISP we used to use (Be), were desperate to keep our business - they offered to reduce the 20Mbs connection we had to £8 a month... So from what I can tell, the regulation of the BT-owned "last mile" seems to have created a market with real competition - which can only be good for consumers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > So from what I can tell, the regulation of the BT-owned "last mile" seems to have created a market with real competition - which can only be good for consumers. You shouldn't conflate the "regulation" that net-neutrality proponents are calling for in the U.S. with the "regulation" of BT. BT started out as a public corporation, which was privatized in the late 1980's and early 1990's. This privatization was accomplished with an express eye to ensuring that BT would continue to have incentives to invest in its network, and investors had notice of the terms of the arrangement. What net neutrality proponents in the U.S. are arguing for is an additional layer of restrictions on existing networks that were built with private capital.
    - arethuza 12y ago
      Yes, I didn't think the UK style regulation would apply at all in the US - just pointing out that it does seem to have worked here, which I think we can all agree is actually fairly surprising. After all, I don't think the other privatised services - particularly energy, water and railways, have worked out quite as well for consumers.

by ds9 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Having a "last mile" monopoly, either embodied in the municipal government or in a regulated utility like British Telecom, can work. However, ensuring that the monopoly has sufficient incentives to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure is complex. See this article which discusses the issues presented by the British Telecom privatization: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/1909801.pdf http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/1909801.pdf. While it's theoretically possible, it's not what the author actually suggests. He suggests forcing Comcast, TWC, etc, to simply lease out their networks wholesale to competitors. This destroys the incentive these companies have to continue to upgrade their networks. There is an obvious reason why the author advocates that approach instead of the one you suggest: state and local governments have no money, and are extremely inefficient at building infrastructure projects to begin with.

arethuza 12y ago
We recently moved back to using BT as an ISP with their Infinity 2 FTTC service and I have been very pleasantly surprised, both with the installation (which was very quick and painless) and the resulting service. It also looks like we might get full FTTP in the next year or so which will be even better. Worth noting that we had BT as an ISP years ago and they were awful so I was reluctant to switch back - but the seem to be making significant investments in their network and their customer services - as well as some pretty good add on offerings like their sports channels. What was most interesting is that Sky, he had bought the ISP we used to use (Be), were desperate to keep our business - they offered to reduce the 20Mbs connection we had to £8 a month... So from what I can tell, the regulation of the BT-owned "last mile" seems to have created a market with real competition - which can only be good for consumers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  > So from what I can tell, the regulation of the BT-owned "last mile" seems to have created a market with real competition - which can only be good for consumers. You shouldn't conflate the "regulation" that net-neutrality proponents are calling for in the U.S. with the "regulation" of BT. BT started out as a public corporation, which was privatized in the late 1980's and early 1990's. This privatization was accomplished with an express eye to ensuring that BT would continue to have incentives to invest in its network, and investors had notice of the terms of the arrangement. What net neutrality proponents in the U.S. are arguing for is an additional layer of restrictions on existing networks that were built with private capital.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Yes, I didn't think the UK style regulation would apply at all in the US - just pointing out that it does seem to have worked here, which I think we can all agree is actually fairly surprising. After all, I don't think the other privatised services - particularly energy, water and railways, have worked out quite as well for consumers.