Re: [EFM] Banana networks
- To: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Geoff Thompson <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [EFM] Banana networks
- From: Alan Levy <refconstandard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:26:11 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: thompson@ieee.org, Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@cisco.com>, Sanjeev Mahalawat <sanjeev@cisco.com>, ariel.maislos@passave.com, "'Mccammon, Kent G.'" <kmccammon@tri.sbc.com>, Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com, stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org, Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org, wdiab@cisco.com
- In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021218133031.00ba50f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
Excellent understanding, Roy. Back to lurker status.
Alan Levy
--- Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Geoff,
>
> I believe that you may be a bit confused. The
> article that you reference is about the TDM
> facilities to buildings. The "fat pipe" referred to
> are the "channels" in the TDM facilities which have
> been forced to be "unbundled" by federal regulations
> to allow competitors access to customers. The
> channelization of TDM makes it possible for multiple
> service providers to cleanly provide services to
> customers over the same transmission facilities.
> Without the federal regulations that force the
> incumbents to sell these "channels" as leased
> facilities to the competition at close to their
> operational costs, there would be no competition for
> customers.
>
> This brings to light two issues. Without a
> political will to force it upon them, facilities
> owners would impose monopolistic control of
> customers and the services that they receive. The
> government can not force "unbundling" of technology
> that does not lend itself to that by providing
> "channelization" that will cleanly segregates the
> service providers.
>
> The government is failing in its political will to
> prevent monopolistic practices and the technology
> developers are not supplying new technology
> that will support non-monopolistic deployments.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum