Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions

From: Christian Kuhtz (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 09:30:22 EST

  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions"

    On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

    >
    > the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
    > statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.

    You can pretty much s/the sbc/rboc/g in this context. Leadership
    seems to believe that because those who conduct business over 'their'
    infrastructure aren't paying them a transaction fee, there's somehow
    something wrong with that model. Fact is, they _are_ getting paid
    for their pipes, and they've never been part of the transaction model
    (aka tax collectors). If you want to be something else, dump the
    pipes r us business model. But then you can't have your cake and eat
    it, too. Somehow, I'm very reminded of how the music industry has
    acted when faced with a disruptor. Very classic threat reponse of
    somebody thinking like a mono/duo/whateverpartitionedmarketpoly.
    Sections in
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/business/2005-10-31-
    bellsouth-mergers_x.htm have publically confirmed similar thought
    patterns. But then again, the CEO's of the companies mentioned here
    do look like twins separated at birth, with companies sharing very
    similar DNA (even though they all think they're very different).

    So, my point being in response to what Randy wrote.. expect a lot
    more where that came from, especially as margins come under more
    pressure. As long as they pretend disruption can be controlled or
    isn't happening, this will continue. And one could argue that the
    recently approved mergers might fuel such attitudes.

    Best regards,
    Christian


  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD