3 ms·

> The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". Indeed, there were phone companies. It seems obvious now that the breakup was done wrong, but with

> The last time AT&T was split up, there weren't any "ISPs". Indeed, there were phone companies. It seems obvious now that the breakup was done wrong, but with the technology at the time it likely couldn't have been done how I'd like it to be done today. I over-simplified when I said "you did it wrong". > Common carrier rules were applied to AT&T's telephone lines, and DSL was also common carrier But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be.

toast0 12y ago
> But they didn't split last mile cabling from whatever runs on top of it, which is the main issue and the only thing that'd actually work to allow quick reactions to a failure to provide adequate service. Otherwise, you have the ISP giving preferential treatment to itself, even though the law says it really shouldn't be. The ILECs were permitted to sell to retail customers and required to sell to wholesale customers; and there was preferential treatment (especially around pricing/promotional rates), but it was significantly more competitive than today, and price preferences could have been resolved by narrow regulatory action. Yes, a complete split would be more competitive, but a partial split is probably more likely to go through, and would put us in a much better place.