Communications infrastructure ownership

[time]

In Oz, all exchanges, local wiring and most trunks are owned by one telco, which used to be government owned. Based on experiences in other countries, how do you think this sort of thing would be handled in Nirvana?

For instance, some streets in Oz have not one but two heavy cables decorating the space between telegraph poles, because the incumbent monopolist refused to share cable TV access. Even access to the underground conduits is usually blocked to other phone, data or TV providers. So you can have underground telephone lines but spaghetti has to be strung between light poles to get you cable.

Some people think that infrastructure should be under government control (or ownership) to avoid the countless conflicts of interest that arise. For example, third parties can't install their own DSL in exchanges. They're forced to buy the capacity off the monopolist.

Why not make telcos stick to retail, to encourage genuine competition?

James etc, please correct me on all this when you get the chance.

 

[time]

Damn, I had a fifth option: "Have only ONE telco".

Feel free to suggest others.

 

[James]

It all sounded pretty much correct to me.

One thing - competing telcos can (in fact must) put their own DSLAM equipment into Telstra's exchanges (and pay for the privilege) in order to provide ADSL service. It's similar in the US.

The issue with ADSL is really what Telstra charges for wholesale access to the copper pair, which is so close to the retail price for the whole DSL service.

My preference would be to split Telstra into two - all copper infrastructure and exchanges put into one company, and then that made into an non-profit organisation essentially like the USO (ie. the obligation to provide all Australians with phone access at the same price). All Australian telcos would contribute to funding according to types and number of services provided. Call this organisation LocalLoopCo.

The remaining, smaller Telstra would then compete against other Australian carriers on equal terms, having to buy local loop, ISDN, ADSL and voice services from LocalLoopCo.

Unfortunately, this will never happen due to Telstra having being 49% sold to the public as shares (even though we actually already owned it, strictly speaking).

 

[Mercutio]

Telecom is one of those services that it is in the interests of the government to regulate very carefully. It's also very nearly a license to print money, so arguments about fostering competition and innovation are very compelling, but it just doesn't happen that way.

The US de-regulated telecomm in 1995. Now we're pretty close to having Ma Bell again, with truly Ma Bell levels of service to go along with it (Pac Bell reportedly keeps office workers in the equipment rooms of a number of its COs, so they can legitimately say to third parties such as DSL ISPs that they don't have room for additional equipment. Magically, this is not a problem when ordering PacBell services). How many baby bells are left? Four?

The FCC in the US is, at this moment, more interested in regulating television in the US - something that's doing fine on its own, thank you - than doing anything about the fact that 2/3 of US residents can't get faster internet access or who-knows-what percentage don't even have quality of service for a reasonable modem connection. OK. It's only the fastest growing mode of communication in the country...

Anyway, someone needs to actually argue the consumer's case here. Having universal phone service was a technological marvel 40 years ago. Why haven't things gotten better since? Right now I'd say it's because the companies that could actually do something about it care more about eating each other than actually providing services of any kind. My view is that regulating service targets will change this greatly.

I can say lots more but my bout of loud-upstairs-neighbor-induced insomnia appears to be at an end.