More Discussion on the FCC's Decision
I'll stop talking about the FCC eventually. First, I direct you to Kevin Werbach's interpretation of what the FCC was thinking and what it got wrong:
The trouble is that you can't just give the tech vendors something, and the incumbent carriers something, because they play different roles. Intel, Cisco, and Microsoft won't be the ones building the networks. The telcos have to deploy the infrastructure, and they won't do that if they feel wronged by the FCC's overall decision and have no competitive pressure. The order does precisely that. It re-energizes the Bells' obstructionist strategy, and it takes away near-term competitive threats from independent DSL providers that might have spurred them to invest anyway.Verizon Senior VP Tom Tauke's quote says it all: "The future of telecommunications is broadband, and on this issue the commission appears to have moved in the right direction but may have important details wrong. Moreover, the future investment in the wireline network is tied to a strong financial base for the overall business." Doesn't sound like someone planning to "jump start investment in next-generation networks," as Commissioner Martin predicted.
That's what I worry. Meanwhile, Dana Blankenhorn thinks that there's still an opportunity for intermodal competition for companies that aggressively plan and develop those markets now. He also thinks it's likely that state regulators will turn the screws on incumbent providers if they don't actually roll out fiber to the home.
This leaves the Wireless ISP space wide-open. Earthlink has an opportunity to become a mega-WISP. It must extend its footprint, and work to gradually switch its present DSL and cable customers to wireless. ...Current WISPs say their biggest problem lies in backhauling traffic from their customers to the Internet core. Even when competitive fiber exists, they can't afford to step it down from the 10 Gpbs speed of a single optical fiber to the 11-54 Mbps their customers need.
This is Covad's opportunity. Multiplex the fiber, then use wireless cable to get those signals to WISP central offices. ...
I have to confess I'm a little confused by the term "wireless cable."
Dave Winer linked both these postings on Scripting News, and I suspect that more links on the topic will appear there.
Categories
Telecom0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: More Discussion on the FCC's Decision.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.tph-lex.com/cgi-bin/mt-mcfp-tb.cgi/108
Wireless cable -- A high-speed point-to-point wireless connection. The model was pioneered by the late Winstar Inc., but they lost mainly because the cost of creating such a link keeps falling. (Lower equipment costs means you can do it yourself, not pay someone else to do it.) A high-speed point-to-point connection between a fiber POP and a neighborhood with 802.11 service would bypass the Bell entirely.