From owner-freebsd-hardware  Sun Jul  7 19:09:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-hardware
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA22499
          for hardware-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 19:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lserver.infoworld.com (lserver.infoworld.com [192.216.48.4])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA22473
          for <hardware@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ccgate.infoworld.com by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0ud7Me-000wsLC; Sun, 7 Jul 96 20:52 PDT
Received: from cc:Mail by ccgate.infoworld.com
	id AA836791639; Sun, 07 Jul 96 20:02:56 PST
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 96 20:02:56 PST
From: "Brett Glass" <Brett_Glass@ccgate.infoworld.com>
Message-Id: <9606078367.AA836791639@ccgate.infoworld.com>
To: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>, michaelv@HeadCandy.com
Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com
Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN 
Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The original problem with multiple phone companies was not redundant
> infrastructure, but their unwillingness to interoperate so that customers
> would see a seamless network.

Both are problems. That the new telecommunications legislation has mandated
sharing of infrastructure does NOT mean it will be shared in a way
that will encourage competition! Incumbent local carriers everywhere are
looking to set rates, terms, and conditions so that they have an edge
and/or competition is still impractical. And because they have the local
lobbying muscle, they often can do this quite effectively.