Example from elsewhere.

There are arguments both ways, but personally I think that NN is closer to the way to go. If an internet company wants to provide fancy search or movies or whatever, they shouldn't own the pipes. There's too much potential for abuse when a local for-profit quasi-monopoly owns a choke point.

There has been a long running tide of discontent towards Telstra for many years because of almost exactly this problem: they own the copper lines as well as sell services on top. It has taken legislation and court hearings to force them to allow other parties to sell access. Only a few years ago, the CEO of Telstra all but said that if he didn't have to sell wholesale access, he wouldn't. This was one of the reasons he is no longer CEO of Telstra.

Ever since Telstra was part privatised, the issue of separation of lines and services has never gone away. Many commentators said the government of the day should have split Telstra into a government org which owned the physical infrastructure everyone uses, and sole the other half as a services company just like everyone else. In the meantime, we had a change of government and the new lot seem to be heading down that road.

The monopoly of vertical integration is also why much of urban Australia got two cable networks a few decades ago: one from Telstra, one from Optus. Our population density was barely enough to support one, but two?

Wade.

Post #324,154 by static 4/6/10 8:37:19 PM Reply	Example from elsewhere. There are arguments both ways, but personally I think that NN is closer to the way to go. If an internet company wants to provide fancy search or movies or whatever, they shouldn't own the pipes. There's too much potential for abuse when a local for-profit quasi-monopoly owns a choke point. There has been a long running tide of discontent towards Telstra for many years because of almost exactly this problem: they own the copper lines as well as sell services on top. It has taken legislation and court hearings to force them to allow other parties to sell access. Only a few years ago, the CEO of Telstra all but said that if he didn't have to sell wholesale access, he wouldn't. This was one of the reasons he is no longer CEO of Telstra. Ever since Telstra was part privatised, the issue of separation of lines and services has never gone away. Many commentators said the government of the day should have split Telstra into a government org which owned the physical infrastructure everyone uses, and sole the other half as a services company just like everyone else. In the meantime, we had a change of government and the new lot seem to be heading down that road. The monopoly of vertical integration is also why much of urban Australia got two cable networks a few decades ago: one from Telstra, one from Optus. Our population density was barely enough to support one, but two? Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #324,169 by Another Scott 4/6/10 11:25:16 PM Reply	Comcast is trying to go that route. They've got an agreement (not yet consummated) to buy around half of NBC/Universal - http://www.nytimes.c...ia/05comcast.html It's clear where Comcast wants to go. They want the pipes and the "content". Box seems to feel it's Ok for providers to have preferred partners, and thus (presumably) preferred packets. Joel Hanes at Balloon-Juice succinctly points out why arguing about BitTorrent is a distraction and why NN is important - http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-1677843 Cheers, Scott.
Post #324,178 by static 4/7/10 9:22:42 AM Reply	They're trying to re-invent AOL. Walled gardens where they run the show from soup to nuts. At least they've learnt that they have to try to make people want to be in there, rather than just assuming they will. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!