🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:26:58 GMT, Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7a9ac6.pte.ese002@spica.exile.org>, ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:15:18 GMT, Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrn7a8f78.n0g.ese002@spica.exile.org>, ese002@news9.exile.org
>> (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:42:16 GMT, Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>So, it's OK for AT&T to own the pipe and require you to subscribe to their 
>>>>>ISP, but it *isn't* OK for SBC to own *it's* pipe while letting you choose 
>>>>>your own ISP?
>>>>
>>>>The big factor is practicality.  How are you supposed to provide access
>>>>to multiple ISP's with a cable modem architecture?
>>>
>>>That's a good question -- I have no idea.  But telco complaints about 
>>>"practicality" have never stopped the FCC from imposing regulatory 
>>>requirements on the them.
>>
>>That's because the practicality complaints lack merit.  The evidence is
>>in existing deployment.  To the best of my knowledge, there are no 
>>multiple provider cable modem systems anywhere.  I would be interested
>>in just hearing about a trial or even a demo.
>
>And the *reason* there aren't any multi-provider cable modem systems?  Because 
>they've never been required to.  Five years ago, there were no "multi- 
>provider" telco lines either.  That didn't stop the FCC from ordering 
>unbundling anyway.

Unbundeling is really a seperate issue, but since you brought it up,
unbundeling did exist 5 years ago.  Dry copper was available and sold
for alarm circuits.  When ISP's started trying to buy these circuits for
DSL, the telcos discontinued the service.

Back on topic, DSL is built on much the same architecure as Frame Relay,
which has supported multiple ISP's and other providers for a good many
years.

-- 
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.  
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.