[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       inet-access
Subject:    Re: Bell South to buy Qwest?
From:       alex () nac ! net
Date:       1999-06-10 1:40:30
[Download RAW message or body]



On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Robert Hough wrote:

> At 03:53 PM 6/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Yes, 5 or 6 that all have monopolies in their respective areas of the
> >country.  how nice.
> 
> Hmm, isn't that already the case?

Yes, it is, primarily because judge green had his head up his assen when
he asserted the bell breakup.

If he had 1/2 clue, he would have split AT&T horizontally, rather than
vertically (translation: by layer rather than goegraphical). For instance,
splitting at&t into several companies along the following lines:

	... outside plant
	... CO co-location
	... switching
	... billing
	... etc


Why? It would have stirred more competition if one did not have to go to
the competition to compete; meaning, instead of having to become a CLEC
and deal with the ILEC, you would buy a switch, purchase space from the
co-lo company, and buy loops from outside plant.

It would have made sense, but thats to much to ask for.



-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
         Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, Chief Technology Officer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone!  http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently.   inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]