North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: What do we mean when we say "competition?" (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
- From: Marshall Eubanks
- Date: Wed Nov 16 12:09:13 2005
On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I do not think that the ITU allocates orbital slots except for
geostationary satellites (not even
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
The worse the existing provider it is, the more practical it is to
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market, including the creation of new providers to seize
opportunities being ignored by the existing ones.
compete with them. If they are providing what people want at a
price, there is no need for competition. If they are not, then the it
becomes practical for multiple providers to enter the market. If you
assume that the cost to develop existing infrastructure is not
less than the cost to develop new infrastructure, the isolation from
competition comes directly from the investment.
1. The existing infrastructure is usually all that is needed for
many of the services in question. Laying parallel copper
as a CLEC is not only prohibitively expensive, in most
areas, it's actually illegal. Usually, municipalities
have granted franchise rights of access to right of
way to particular companies on an exclusive basis. That
makes it pretty hard for a competitor to enter the market
if they can't get wholesale access to the existing copper.
2. The existing copper was actually deployed (at least in most
of the united States) using public subsidies. The taxpayers
actually paid for the network. The physical infrastructure
should be the property of the people. The ownership claim
of the telephone companies is almost as baseless as the
Verisign clame that they own the data in whois.
For example, if Bill Gates took a few billion dollars out of his
and launched 80 satellites to provide wireless Internet access, it
be damn hard to compete with him if he wasn't trying to recover
billion dollars. But if you spend a few billion, you get a few
worth. Anyone else can spend the same amount and get the same
3. Except when you consider that there are only so many orbital
slots that can be maintained. (see 1 above as well). If Bill
manages to launch N satellites and N leaves N/2 orbital slots
available for other uses, then, it's pretty hard to launch
another N satellites at any cost.
24 hour inclined orbits, such as are so useful for satellite
transmissions to cars). So, if you
want to launch a Teledesic or Iridium clone, you can, assuming your
credit cards are good for a few billion $.
Frequency assignment is, of course, another matter.
If he already has the satellites and is providing the service other
people want at a low price, then other competitors will lose. But
Consumers win. And competition doesn't exist to benefit the
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably