🚀 go-pugleaf

In <ccmillerCssy3w.HDt@netcom.com>, ccmiller@netcom.com writes:
>The difference in who provides the infrastructure may be significant.  Telephone companies would charge customers for the additional cost of installation of new fiber-optic cable networks.  If provided by the power companies, the consumers would be saving
> money, due both to increased power efficiency and to discounts from the power company for sacrificing power to their air-conditioners, for example, during peak times.  The amount of construction work necessary to install these fiber-optic and co-axial ne
>tworks also plays a part.  Minimal impact on all environments is obviously preferable.  Digging up roads, diverting traffic and affecting local environments should be minimized.  
>

What do you think the "unfair advantage" of a superior infrastructure provider is likely to be?
Are they all equal, except for their costs to go from their present levels of cabling in the
ground, to some future level? I suspect that this is not the likely differentiator. There is a lot
to being successful in this business than digging trenches, and those factors I think will
play a big role in the eventual role of the alternate players. Lastly, of the total investment
from now to the year 2000, how much of a "headstart" do you really think the utility cos.
have, nationwide? In fact, what is the evidence that they have more installed capacity
than other providers? If you are trying to protect local environments, I think that the cable
company has the highest bandwidth into my house (from the pole), telco next, and the
power utilities companies have a 60Hz unshielded line. What am I missing in this picture?