That's why I want legislation requiring the operator to be one or the other and not both.
Most L1 gets built with tax dollars or subsidies anyway. Owen > On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:34, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > >> On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost, >> often other games are played (trouble ticket for service >> billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble >> ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14 >> days, etc.). >> >> IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider >> (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure >> provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher >> layers. > > Agree. > > In reality, though, we've seen Layer 1-only providers > becoming service providers (even when they previously > promised the market it would never happen), due to wanting > to stay "relevant". > > I suppose if a Layer 1 provider were a government entity, > there is a higher chance they would never enter the Layer 2 > or 3 space, but even then, there is strong lobbying in > politics that this could become a reality. > > I've seen it happen a great deal in south east Asia, > Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, and now even South Africa, > particularly with Layer 1 providers that were government > entities built to enable fibre connectivity for management > of utility services (power, for example) and were then > tasked to offer Layer 1 services with the remaining fibre, > but currently find themselves now playing in Layer 2 and > above to make extra cash for the government. > > It's hard... > > Mark.
