[IP] more on why should we ever trust corporation -- BP Named in Inquiry on Pricing - New York Times
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Faulhaber, Gerald" <faulhabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 2, 2006 10:59:25 PM EDT
To: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Farber
<dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on why should we ever trust corporation -- BP
Named in Inquiry on Pricing - New York Times
Dark fiber as infrastructure; interesting. Is lighting it a business?
My concerns about munis getting into this (or indeed any) business is
that they absolutely will use their power over licenses, franchises,
rights of way, etc. to block new entry/technology that they see as a
threat to their own business (i.e., BB conduit). If we could pass a
law saying "can't pass laws forbidding munis into Internet", I would
go along only if we passed a law saying "munis cannot use their
powers to behave anticompetitively." But try as I might, I can't
write such a law that clever mayors can't easily get around. My fear
is these guys get in on some technology (like wifi) and then when
firms enter the city to offer fiber the city sees it as a threat to
their (wifi) system and refuses to grant the fiber guys right of way
to lay their fiber. In fact, cities are notorious for doing stuff
exactly like this, and most folks don't even notice.
Incidentally, there is an interesting paper by Sappington and Sidak
(forget where) that shows gov'ts that enter markets behave more
anticompetitively than private firms. Maybe not what you want to
hear, but think about it. Mayors are only human, too.
Professor Gerald Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania
From: Robert J. Berger [mailto:rberger@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 5:43 PM
To: Faulhaber, Gerald
Cc: Dewayne Hendricks; David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] more on why should we ever trust corporation -- BP
Named in Inquiry on Pricing - New York Times
What I am proposing is that the Government WOULD NOT LIGHT the fiber,
so there are no electronics or active optical components as part of
the Municipal build. I am not attached to that outcome, but I think
that is what would overcome the concern you mention. I don't think
Municipalities are up to running (or dealing with the 5 year
lifetimes) of the optics/electronics. But their "Men in Trucks" can
deal with the ongoing maintenance of the conduit, utility poles and
dark fiber.
Lighting the fiber would be the job of some commercial or other
entity that could do that as a business or as part of another
business (bundling the lighting of the fiber with higher layer services)
The point is that there can be no monopoly on lighting the fiber. The
fiber is available to anyone who wants to lease it at a cost + basis
on a per run basis.
I'm still wondering if you (and all the other folks on ether side of
the Net Neutrality dispute) are willing to state for the record that
there should be no laws barring municipalities or other entities from
competing with the incumbents.
Also, is there a document that was written BEFORE the building of the
Interstate Highway System with all the numbers: benefits, costs,
investments, etc? Can't we just say its for our National Security :-)
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Faulhaber, Gerald wrote:
I think we are pretty close on this subject. I do (and did)
understand your point about layer 1 only, just like highways.
However, I have two points re: screwing up. (i) the Interstate
system is in need of constant repairs and in many areas these are
being neglected. If rats start eating into the fiber cable (and
they do) it'll need to be fixed. (ii) Unlike highways, the fiber
infrastructure will have to be upgraded to stay even reasonably
current with advancing technology, principally new optical
electronics (I forget the fancy technical name for this). I think
this is the biggest concern I have about gov't providing this
infrastructure; if it were a static technology like highways, it
could very well work. In this case, I really worry.
There may be a public business case for building such an
infrastructure (assuming all these problems can be solved), just
like there was for the Interstate system, but it is a much
different case. I would like to see somebody make this case
carefully, with all the numbers: benefits, costs, investments,
etc. I am not a fan of "if you build it they will come."
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/