RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

(no email)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2008 - 10:52:26 EST

  • Next message: Church, Charles: "RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    > what you're calling a political failure could be what others
    > call a rate war.

    I only used the term "political failure" because it was
    the best match of the two options given. But you are
    right that it is necessary to let go of those terms
    and maybe, define your own, if you want to get to a
    deep understanding of what is going on.

    > but i am saying that if this long chain of guesses is
    > accurate it likely also represents the ONLY way to drive
    > efficiency in a competitive capital-intensive market.

    In other words, the market demands more efficiency and gives
    their resources (money) to those willing to provide it.
    This is generally how any given industry makes step changes
    in efficiency, due to competitive pressures.

    > It is now part of every nation's and
    > everbody's
    > > critical infrastructure. It needs to be engineered and
    > operated better
    > > so that it does not end up partitioning for dumb reasons.
    >
    > that sounds like justification for government regulation, if true.

    Not at all. It is justification for ISP management to stop
    peddling the same old, same old, and to restructure their businesses
    to be more like a utility. Granted, there is more margin to be
    made in vale-added services, but the core network operation needs
    to be run as an efficient utility, not have its inefficiency propped
    up by some lucrative voice products.

    Cogent seems to be operating according to the pure utility model.
    If the other ISPs don't want to get dragged into that space, they
    need to partition their businesses so that the high-priced services
    provide actual added value to customers over and above the generic
    Internet transit service.

    Regulation is just a way to prop up inefficient businesses as we should
    have all learned with the global telco disaster from the 1960's onward.
    As the sophistication of technology rose exponentially along with
    drastic drops in prices, telcos just ate up the extra margin by
    becoming more inefficient, until finally the regulators said enough is
    enough, and opened the doors to competition.

    --Michael Dillon


  • Next message: Church, Charles: "RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD