From: John Cuccia 

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:25:04 -0400, "Gary Britt"
 wrote:

>> That would have been true until last October when the FCC decided that
>> incumbent providers don't have to sell service on *their* wires and
>> pipes to competitors
>
>Well I think the FCC was wrong then.

Their reasoning is that the investment required to build fiber-to-the-curb
loops (which the FCC deem "functionally equivalent" to
fiber-to-the-home systems) is high enough to warrant the exception, which
had already been granted to FTTH systems.

Just getting the FCC to call FTTH the functional equivalent of FTTC was a
victory for the telcos.   FTTC with copper last-mile technology
is only "functionally equivalent" to FTTH up to a point.  I
believe that the current favorite to become the high-speed DSL standard is
VDSL, which promises up to 55mbps downstream speeds and up to 2.5 mbps
upstream).    The capacity of fiber far exceeds that, but now the
phone company can mount a campaign claiming that they offer technology that
is "functionally equivalent" to FTTH.   Of course they don't say
that they have not deployed a single VDSL system yet, and that when they
start they'll be spending all their time and money selling it into their
more profitable urban markets.

>I'm for competition on a level playing field, so to that extent we don't
>disagree here.   It can take time, but eventually somebody else will find a
>way to service underserved markets.  I'm not against a city doing it, just
>so its operated like a for profit business, pays its taxes, etc.

The time is now.  Small communities all over the country are trying to
provide cheap bandwidth to busineses and residents, but they are being
fought tooth and nail at every junction by the Baby Bells and cable
operators.

I think it is dead wrong to expect governments to operate like for-profit
businesses.  No municipality (or any other government entity) should profit
directly from the services it sells.  It should charge enough to service
debt, to maintain and operate the system, and to provide for expansion and
upgrades.  It should pay any taxes that municipal utilities are obligated
to pay, but no more.

>> The Congressman from SBC isn't interested in competition, he's
>> interested in preserving the existing monopoly.
>
>That may be true.  I am not in favor of preserving monopolies.
>
>Be wary of anything named "Utopia" 

I dunno, the prospect of a 100 mbps fiber connection to my house feels
pretty good.  (Not that I need it, 10 will probably be plenty at first.)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5