NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Unbundling rates [ +Administrivia ]
[ Administrivia: OK gang. I'm sending this message through, which is Richard Bennett's impolite response to a completely polite message from Dave Burstein, as an example of messages that I will *not* tolerate in this forum. The actual technical and policy issues aside, Richard is demonstrating the sort of attitude in his "expository style" that I personally believe actively does damage to any reasonable attempts to reach consensus on these matters. Feel free to engage in name calling in private e-mail if you wish, but not in public forums, or at least not on *this* list. Remember, if you CC nnsquad on an item, I will normally assume it was intended to be considered for distribution, unless it's fairly obvious that it was meant as a private message to me alone. NNSquad *will* remain a civil and polite discussion venue. -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ] - - - ******Your greasy question about "monopoly like pricing" doesn't pertain to the US, Burstein. Check the data: * Vermont? You must be kidding: http://burlingtontelecom.net/residential_services/rate_matrix.htm Burlington Telecom offers 8mbps for $72/month. That's not much of a deal, Burstein. * Every responsible study of the rates US operators charge for low-end broadband and cell calls finds that we have rates among the lowest in the world; check OECD, Merrill Lynch, any source you want. The carriers give the service away at the low end and charge more for the high end, which is as it should be. And no, 300 MHz is not enough for 10 carriers, it's barely enough for Wi-Fi, which currently has 450 MHz. Look, Dave, it's obvious that you've been pulling numbers out of your ass for a long time and hoping nobody would check you because you pepper your observations with name-dropping. I know "Dick" and "Tony" and "Tom" and "Jim" myself, so don't try to pull that crap on me. RB On 8/29/2010 4:00 PM, Dave Burstein wrote: > Richard wrote: "They want cable and telco to pull fiber and then > wholesale it to ISPs at or below cost." Every unbundling proposal I > can think of, specifically including U.S. UNE's, is defined with a > generous return on capital. > > I'm not very optimistic about unbundling affecting most U.S. > consumers because I think the scale the carriers now have in TV,voice, > Internet connectivity, and operations make it extremely difficult for > unbundling to work in the U.S. > > but the specific question Richard - and Jules Genachowski - have > to answer is, "If we find monopoly like-pricing unacceptable, what > alternative do you offer?" > > Currently, Verizon, Comcast and their peers are charging $100 for > high speeds that cost $50 and less in France, England, and Vermont. > To me, that is pretty good evidence competition is weak and prices > could be much lower. > > I'm willing to accept that competition might work in low > speeds/wireless, because 300 megahertz is enough for 10 networks like > Verizon's LTE. V & T are pulling away from the others so successfully > it will probably require strong government action to protect > competition for that to work, and at least through 2013-2015 U.S. > wireless prices will be somewhat higher than if we had strong > competition. I'm not happy, but waiting that long is not off-the-wall. > > But unless someone sees something that will bring prices for > highspeed/wired connections, I feel something must be done. > > Richard, are you really an advocate of strong regulation and > probably price-fixing for high speeds? Or do you have a better way to > reduce monopoly-like prices? > db > > > -- Richard Bennett Senior Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC