Broadband Regulation Debated (in US Senate)

InformationWeek,com ^ | May 22, 2002 | David M. Ewalt

[Bogey78O]

Oh yeah. I work in Install and Maintenance.

[jayef]

YGM

[Bogey78O]

YGM?

[jayef]

Not good with acronyms, eh? ;-) You've got mail. Check your Freepmail.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"DSLAM"

Heh heh... thank goodness for Anconym Finder.

Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer

[tortoise]

Seems that the last I heard, the emerging 'LD-DSL' (Long-Distance DSL) that PacBell was offering was a pathetic 128kbps symmetric xfer rate (up/down) for $120/month.

There is a new company I know of that has just started their first residential rollout for broadband, which as it happens doesn't use the telco last mile (or anywhere in their transcontinental network). They have a 20,000' range also, and for a similar price the smallest service they deliver is 1-Mbit symmetric and they do it at a profit. This is the kind of competition the telcos really need -- there is hope yet.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Oh wait - the Bell companies only want a law the exempts them from having to share their property - not mine. "

By this logic, we can assume you'd like the water, electric and gas services removed from your property as well? Maybe you should be the one to move... to the top of some godforsaken mountain in the middle of nowhere... nobody would bother you with those pesky modern conveniences.

[Bogey78O]

Wireless?

[Bogey78O]

Yeah sorry about that. It's the point at which DSL is spliced into the line.

[Harrison Bergeron]

WFM

[tortoise]

In part. The network architecture is unique and rather brilliant, and they are utilizing a handful of new wireless technologies that really extend the capabilities of what most people conceive that wireless networking can do in terms of range, transit capacity, and cost. Couple this with a pure fiber network that most companies would be envious of and it gets interesting. The company was designed from the ground up to be a telco killer; the principals are well-connected and some major hardware vendors are working closely with the company to develop the systems and protocols. The bottom line is that they represent a quantum leap in the cost/performance ratio for these types of systems and their infrastructure costs are pennies on the dollar compared to telco infrastructure costs. I expect them to do very well.

[HAL9000]

By this logic, we can assume you'd like the water, electric and gas services removed from your property as well? Maybe you should be the one to move... to the top of some godforsaken mountain in the middle of nowhere... nobody would bother you with those pesky modern conveniences.

No, your assumption is wrong. I stated my position in #15 -

"I favor a reasonable amount of eminent domain powers for utilities, in return for regulations on the utilities that serve the public interest. Requiring the telephone companies to allow competitors to access their facilities is a reasonable tradeoff for eminent domain powers."

I don't favor giving utilities the power of eminent domain without expecting them to make some concessions too. Is that unreasonable?

[Bogey78O]

Has it gone public yet?