I don't pretend to be the original person with this idea. But I would very much like to see it implemented.
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:24, Joly MacFie <j...@punkcast.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> MHO, 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 > > > > A few years back Fred Goldstein proposed defining a Layer 1 infrastructure > provider as a "LoopCo", where the local loop is passively provided to service > providers to light it as they see fit. He even wrote draft legislation, > where the incumbent LEC is divided into a "Facilities Entity" and a "Services > Entity": > > http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm > > That proposal generally requires something like a CLEC to light the wire > locally, and makes CLECs viable again. > > He has also proposed requiring ILECs (and cablecos) to provide low-layer > (layer 2, mostly) common carriage on an open basis; as filed in the current > NN docket: > > http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm > > > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -