[PLUG-TALK] Verizon willfully driving DSL users into the arms of cable

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at gate.kl-ic.com> writes:

Galen> The public really needs to own the infrastructure.
Galen> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/op-ed-verizon-willfully-driving-dsl-users-into-the-arms-of-cable/>

Keith> I'm not sure I understand the problem.  Why should Verizon
Keith> maintain legacy copper crap when it can move customers to more
Keith> maintainable FIOS?  New fiber is cheaper and more durable than
Keith> coax or twisted pair, though the endpoints are $$$$ .  A long
Keith> term oriented company would be stupid to connect new customers
Keith> with copper.

The copper was built under explicitly monopoly conditions where the
company was guaranteed a profit by the state, so there is regulatory
authority to compell "open access" where service providers other than
the nominal owner can use the infrastructure to reach customers.
Since the Telco Act of 1996, new infrastructure is the sole property
of the owner.  You can't use Aracnet (or whoever) and its TOS over
verizon/frontier fiber.  Unless and until that changes (unlikely),
public ownership of the infrastructure is the only thing that can
guarantee open-access that would actually provide the competition that
the Telco Act claimed to be encouraging.  Even Google's fiber project,
which seemed so enlightened 2 years ago, is launching without
open-access.  While there is in theory no longer a monopoly (another
company could build a second network), in practice the monopoly (or
near monopoly) remains, and for structural/economic reasons, it is
likely to remain so.

Fiber has the capacity to carry everyones traffic, for any/all
ISPs/customers/insert-random-innovation-of-the-future.  It is idiotic
to build more than one network in a particular area, as idiotic as
having seperate highways for different makes of cars.  You just
multiply the capital expense and divide the user-base that will pay
for it, making profits lower and end-user costs higher.

Wireless will never *ever* compete with fiber in terms of capacity,
principally because you don't have a good way of controlling and
channeling the interference without the boundaries of a conductor.  As
a result, your bits get sprayed as RF all over creation in an almost
completely uncontrolled fashion.  Wireless is great for broadcast, not
good for 2-way communication for many users, all of whom want/need to
transmit.  It is worse than half-duplex, it's 1/Nth duplex, where N is
the number of users within range.  Meanwhile, the stray RF just fuzzes
up everyone else listening for weak signals.

For $$$-efficient, high-speed, high-capacity networks, you need fiber.
And to in our own peculiar degenerate political/legal regime the only
way to keep the users interests in the picture is through
user-ownership.  Users need to speak up and demand this and be willing
cooperate to pay for it (less than they pay for a crappier service
now), or it won't happen.


-- 
Russell Senior, President
russell at personaltelco.net