Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government Networking Politics

EU Wants German Telekom Fiber Open to All 100

Posted by Zonk from the don't-bogart-the-photons dept.
High Fibre writes "The European Commission has informed Germany that a new law protecting Deutsche Telekom's fiber optic network is illegal. Deutsche Telekom is in the process of rolling out a new fiber network that will serve the 50 largest German cities by the end of 2007 and convinced the German parliament to pass a law that would keep the competition from being able to lease its lines. The EC says that's a no-go: 'The EC believes that the German law would make it more difficult for competitors to enter the German market. More importantly, it runs contrary to an EC-endorsed recommendation that Deutsche Telekom be forced to open up its network — including the new fiber deployment — to competitors.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Wants German Telekom Fiber Open to All More

EU Wants German Telekom Fiber Open to All

Comments Filter:

  • I never know how to feel about things like this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @12:52PM (#18168982)
    On the one hand, if you paid to build the network, it *is* yours, and you should get exclusive access to it. Why should your competitors get a "free ride"?

    On the other hand, you don't really want a bunch of fiber running everywhere, when there's PLENTY already in the ground. Building "duplicate" networks is a waste of resources, and the construction is disruptive.

    Honestly, at this point, I think that "the government" should be building the networks with tax money, and letting the various providers lease it for a reasonable price. Bandwidth/communications has really become the backbone of the modern economy in a lot of ways. It should be treated almost like the highway system. The only downside is the bureaucracy that will rise up around it all. But I think that, overall, it would be a better situation.

    • Re:I never know how to feel about things like this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @01:00PM (#18169096)
      On the one hand, if you paid to build the network, it *is* yours, and you should get exclusive access to it.

      Although that sounds common sense, in actual fact the fibre network will travel almost entirely over public property (under pavements, roads etc), and so we the people (through our government) can put whatever conditions we want on it.
      • Yeah, that's a good point.

        Again, though, it doesn't seem exactly fair that ONE company has to eat the cost of building the network, which is why I think the "feds" should do it.

        • The company is allowed to charge other businesses for using the network, thus recouping the cost. They're, however, obligated to provide this service to anyone who asks and is willing to pay the set price.
          • Business can refuse service to anyone they want, excepting reasons of sex, race, sexual preference and veteran status. It's THEIR network, paid for with THIER dollars. If the network doesn't make money then they should consider opening it up for others to lease. They have bought the right of way for the cable and connections, so why should the Government basically nationalize it and make it open for everyone? Thats socialism not capitalism. There is ZERO incentive for new technologies or business ventures w

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
              The Telekom is a former monopoly and still subject to antitrust laws. As such they aren't allowed to refuse services to competitors that are willing to pay the fees.
              • AHA..they are still in the penalty box! Unless of course they get the law changed. In the USA they would just buy a Congressperson or six and make the law go away.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by 3247 ( 161794 )

                  AHA..they are still in the penalty box! Unless of course they get the law changed. In the USA they would just buy a Congressperson or six and make the law go away.

                  That's exactly what Deutsche Telekom did in Germany: They've gotten the law changed to include an exception for "new technologies" such as the VDSL network they're currently building. What makes convincing the government even more easy is that Germany is still the largest shareholder of Deutsche Telekom AG (the successor of Deutsche Bundespost TEL

                  • I seem to recall the EU "commissioners" can be bought just like gov't officals in Germany and the USA just at a higher price. IIRC, the commissioners represent each nation and have to balance national needs with EU policy. I seem to recall in the recent software patents and Microsoft anti-competition cases in the EU there was some rumors a few EU "commissioners" were "convinced" to vote for patents and for MS.

            • Business can refuse service to anyone they want, excepting reasons of sex, race, sexual preference and veteran status.

              Hello? We're not in Kansas anymore! We're in Germany!

              Thats socialism not capitalism.

              No socialism is when the government owns businesses, capitalism is when they regulate them. This is definitely a case of regulation, though I believe in times past the relevant corporation (Deutsche Telecom) was government owned.

              • No COMMUNISM is when the Gov't owns the businesses. Socialism is making everyone "equal" via wealth transfer from those who have the wealth to those who do not.

                • No COMMUNISM is when the Gov't owns the businesses. Socialism is making everyone "equal" via wealth transfer from those who have the wealth to those who do not.

                  Sorry, wrong again!

                  Although I would not want to argue that the dictionary definition is the final word, here's what the OED has to say:

                  socialism
                  1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
                  2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

                  And please don't tell me what Wikipedia says as I'm too busy to correct it right at the moment. :p

                  Communism in fact (as you should know from your reading of Marx), is a putative stateless society which comes a

                  • I wasn't talking about the sociological aspects ("stateless society") but rather from a business angle. And in that context your data exactly supports my case. In SOCIALISM there can be private business under strict Gov't control (see Venezula for instance) so that everyone profits equally. So limited private enterprise is OK. In Communism there can be no private enterprise.

                    • OK, this is my last on this topic. You are, of course, free to use words to mean anything you want them to. You need on conform to accepted definitions if you want to communicate with someone else. If you want to communicate with educated people, it helps to know what the words you are using actually mean (in the more technical sense which educated people tend to prefer over the colloquial).

                      I wasn't talking about the sociological aspects ("stateless society") but rather from a business angle.

                      If you w

            • The business is running their network over public property. So it's not fully their network - the cables are theirs, but the land isn't. And it comes with strings attached.
              • That is why you BUY right of way, so you don't have to use Public property. Maybe in the EU that's different but here in the US utilities buy an "easement" from the property owners to run cables, then that easement belongs to them (subject to a few restrictions such as allowing free passage across right or way, or use as farm land, etc.). Even the Government has to pay for easements. Sounds to me like property rights over there are not the same as here.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And in this case, the German government made an agreement with the company to give them exclusive access to the network they built. And now that they've built a good portion of it, the EC comes in and says Germany didn't have the right to make that agreement. Would the company still have made that big of an investment if they knew they'd have to share the network with others? It's hard to say, but it seems a fair bit less likely.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
          To be fair, they aren't expected to share those for free. Still it's not nice to pull a 180 like that on someone.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xoyoyo ( 949672 )
          Telekom *is* to all intents and purposes the German Government. Although the government has reduced its shareholding from 76% to 15.4% in the last decade it is still the largest (by far) single shareholder able to dictate policy throught the board (such as the sacking of the last two CEOs).

          Also, the German government would have known all along that this deal was going to run into a lot of EU flak and presumably calculated that it could force it past the relevant regulatory bodies. Both German and France hav

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) *
        That's fine, as long as the public's representative negotiates those conditions *before* the network is built, keeping in mind that unjustifiably burdensome conditions may mean it's never build.

        However, why does the builder of the network have to be the same one sending data through it? Wouldn't it be better if one non-ISP company built it, and then leased to all users at prevailing prices? Then you don't have to worry about it being stacked in favor of one ISP's customers. (Disclaimer: I'm a newb on und
        • Wouldn't it be better if one non-ISP company built it, and then leased to all users at prevailing prices?

          Obviously.

          However you're coming from a situation where there was a national telephone company, probably nationalised, that was privatised with monopoly restrictions, but is still massive. Look at BT in the UK as an example.

          The solution has been to try and slice up the company in such a way that you don't create a bunch of smaller monopolies (like splitting Microsoft into Office, Windows, Internet would h

          • Germany... (Score:1, Offtopic)

            by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 )

            It sounds like Germany has tried to regulate instead of solve the situation, and when the regulators are bought out (as with this 'let us build our own exclusive network' deal) the entire mechanism is pointless and the consumers don't benefit.

            <rant>
            The thing about Germany is that at the moment it's a country that is in dire need of radical economic and regulatory reform but as a leading politician from one of it's neighboring countries observed: "Economic reform is something the Germans seem to have a deep rooted primal fear of." Just take a look at the last elections in Germany, Social Democrats and Christian democrats in a coalition government. Either one on their own I can live with but a coalition is like putting a pack of hyenas in a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      The real solution here would probably be to force companies doing this kind of work to allow other companies to share their trenches. If you want to bury a bunch of fiber, you've got to let your competitors pay their share of the digging bill and drop their wire in the trench at the same time if they want to.

      • Re:I never know how to feel about things like this (Score:4, Funny)

        by Lordrashmi ( 167121 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @01:43PM (#18169678)
        Yeah, I want all fiber running in one place so the backhoe can take it out in one fell swoop.
      • That doesn't really help or solve anything. The problem is that most of the right-of-ways are owned by the public (they run alongside roads or highways, etc.) or are actually on private property, which the government allows private companies to use, regardless of what the property owner thinks of it (e.g. the telephone company can put a pole or interface box on your lawn if it wants, and in most states there isn't shit you can do about it).

        We don't want people going and digging stuff up all the time, and we

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        You would have to be extremely careful in how you dealt with 'we're not ready yet'.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gmack ( 197796 )
        That is actually what they do here in Montreal Canada. The city owns the conduit and anyone who wants to can put cable inside for a per kilometer rental fee.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dave562 ( 969951 )
      Honestly, at this point, I think that "the government" should be building the networks with tax money, and letting the various providers lease it for a reasonable price. Bandwidth/communications has really become the backbone of the modern economy in a lot of ways. It should be treated almost like the highway system. The only downside is the bureaucracy that will rise up around it all. But I think that, overall, it would be a better situation.

      I agree with you 100% on this one. I am generally not a fan of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by theckhd ( 953212 )
      By keeping industry involved though, the government lets the industry shoulder some of the cost, thus increasing the rate at which the network is deployed/improved. It also helps keep the amount of bureaucracy limited.

      As long as there is still profit to be had, it will be worth it to the companies to invest in the infrastructure. Having a limited amount of regulation imposed by the government seems like the most cost-effective way (for the government, anyway) to encourage that. Too much regulation, and t
      • I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the profit to be had comes from *what you send through the wires*. Building the network is just a necessary step. If the wires were available to anybody (for a reasonable cost), then we'd see MUCH more competition in network services. Right now, the costs of bandwidth make it prohibitive for anyone but the BIGGEST players to do the really cool things.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by theckhd ( 953212 )
          But if through regulation, you can mandate that the wires must be made available to anyone for a reasonable cost (which is effectively what the EC is saying), and still let companies shoulder some of the financial burden of building the network, the government saves the taxpayers a great deal of money while achieving the same end result.

          I agree that it would be nice if the gov't fronted some cash to help make fiber available everywhere, but it gets expensive fast. Until Joe Taxpayer becomes convinced that

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by maxume ( 22995 )
            It is somewhat unfortunate for Deutsche Telekom if they were not able to factor the EC regulation into their decision to invest in the network. They may have been better off buying peanuts or something.
    • My normal knee-jerk reaction to the government doing this is, "hell no!" Usually the government screws up anything it gets a hold of; however, in this case, I think the analogy is spot on. Communications networks are becoming very much like the highway system in everyday necessity. I think I would be all for the government buying out the existing infrastructure (fiber and copper) at a reasonable price, and then using tax money to extend and expand it. Heck, we paid for the Spanish-American war as a surc

    • Why should your competitors get a "free ride"?

      I wouldn't necessarily call it a free ride. They would be leasing the lines, meaning they would be paying for the use.

      I can see two issues to this:

      (1) DT Owns the lines: I don't see why they'd be so upset, they can charge what they want can't they?
      (2) The Government owns the lines, DT just built them for the government. Well, DT should have charged more shouldn't htey? Guess they bit themselves in the ass on that one (if it's the case).

      • There is already a model for this concerning other lines. The only problem is that DT is harshly overcharging their competitors for the use. Hence several lawsuits are running against them (for a really long time now, btw) and the goverment is finally forced to crack down on them. DTs situation is largely coming from them being a state owned company more than 10-15 years ago.
    • If it is run over public land, then the government has every right to dictate its leasing terms. I have no problem with other companies being charged a fair rate by DT for the use of the lines, it shouldn't be locked out or assigned prohibitive fees. Such terms were dictated to prevent excessive duplication of cables and reduce eyesores. How the fees are done in some areas is that the line owner must charge other companies the same rates that its internal units pay for the same service. Accounting rules

    • Seeing it as a community project is a good perspective. Nevertheless, the government will in that case be the one that will have the "real" monopoly, since it can control the cost of the services. In addition, governments are elected by the people, and then we may see things like "Schroeder for Kanzler! - get your new cable connection NOW for only 19.99" in the election campaigns...

      However, one must be carefull with the taxpayer's money. They should come from a special "eTax" or something, because the u

    • If the line is built with my tax money, then I expect free access to it.

      Just like roads that I can use for free (sans tax) with a car of my choice, I would be able to connect my computer right to the main line and use the net for free.

      I get the feeling that's not going to work out very well.

      • Well, your tax money would pay for the actual LINES, but not for the service.

        Just like your tax money pays for roads, but not for your car or for gasoline.

  • I thought the former telco monopolys in europe had to open their old networks for the new telcos to even enable some form of competition. I didn't know that new investments after the opening by the now "private" company fall under the same rule. It's no wonder why there's almost no fiber optics rolled out in the EU, because nobody is willing to pay for infrastructure that must be opened to the competition...

    • No fiber optics [slashdot.org]?

      Are you sure ?

      I don't know the German situation in details. I don't know if T-Online has a serious competitor but I am pretty sure that they eventually have one. We had the same situation in France and France Telecom was very powerful. I took one Entrepreneur (Xavier Niels) to create competition. Other operators followed.

      German are very smart and I these day I am a bit caution on EU intervention regarding infrastructure. Let's see what's happening.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 3247 ( 161794 )

        I don't know the German situation in details. I don't know if T-Online has a serious competitor but I am pretty sure that they eventually have one.

        T-Online is just the subsidiary of DTAG that provides Internet access, and they do have serious competition. It's T-Com, another subsidiary of DTAG, which ows the network.

        You can actually choose between the following options:

        • phone line/DSL from T-Com, Internet access from T-Online.
        • phone line/DSL from T-Com, Internet access from a competitor.
        • phone line from T-Com

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Zatic ( 790028 )
      Actually large parts of Eastern Germany already have fiber optics that where rolled out in the 90ies. On the other hand, whole towns there don't have broadband access for that reason because so far the telcos only offer DSL.

      So part of the infrastructure and market demand is already there.

      Also, to all the libertarian voices: the German state actually holds the majority in Deutsche Telekom's stocks, so in the end they can tell them to do whatever they want anyway.
    • The situation is quite complicated here.

      On the one hand, you are right, if Deutsche Telekom builds a new network, one would assume that it is theirs and that they could do with it as they please, renting it out or keeping it to themselves.

      On the other hand, the Telekom is a former state owned monopoly, and the German TelCo market is far from well balanced: It takes a huge investment to build a nationwide fiber-optics network, and it seems only the Telekom has the means to do so.

      So do we want to regula

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 3247 ( 161794 )

      I thought the former telco monopolys in europe had to open their old networks for the new telcos to even enable some form of competition. I didn't know that new investments after the opening by the now "private" company fall under the same rule. It's no wonder why there's almost no fiber optics rolled out in the EU, because nobody is willing to pay for infrastructure that must be opened to the competition...

      The network T-Com is currently building is a fibre-to-the-curb (FTTC) network based on VDSL2. This m

    • It's no wonder why there's almost no fiber optics rolled out in the EU, because nobody is willing to pay for infrastructure that must be opened to the competition...

      Of course, argument presupposes something that is not true. Companies do pay for the infrastructure and it leads to more bandwidth for less money for the consumers than in countries that don't require telecom infrastructure to be open.
  • Yes, some day it will all come to naught. But, still, AFAIK we have not achieved that "New World Order" as yet. So why are they all over Germany's interests? It's no wonder that some countries are not joining the EU.
    • It's no wonder that some countries are not joining the EU.

      There are countries left which don't want to join? Which ones (apart from Norway and Switzerland)? Turkey is not even on the same continent (ok half of Istanbul is). The way things are going an application by Brazil or Taiwan wouldn't surprise me anymore...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        There are countries left which don't want to join? Which ones (apart from Norway and Switzerland)?

        You can't really just ignore Norway and Switzerland... You also can't call some of the existing members "willing".

        Case in point, the French and Dutch votes a year and a half ago on the EU constitution, or the monetary unit currently used in the UK.

        The EU seems, to me, like a means of shoring up Europe's weaker economies, while providing a clean regulatory environment for the stronger economies to target

        • The EU seems, to me, like a means of shoring up Europe's weaker economies, while providing a clean regulatory environment for the stronger economies to target nearby emerging markets. At the same time, no one seems happy with the arrangement. So you have a lot of countries that pay lip service to EU membership, then fight EU rule every step of the way.

          I have to say, that sounds like the perfect government! Weak government is a good thing; a government that someone -- anyone -- is completely happy with, is tyranny. I wish my country could join up too.

        • Whining about the EU is one thing but opting to stay out or leaving... Whining has no consequences, but once you decide to leave or to stay out you need to face the hard reality that almost everybody inside will be better off than you. Also of course - as long as a country is in the EU, its government can blame all those tough decisions on the EU - "they make us do that". Nothing quite as convenient for a politician as that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 3247 ( 161794 )

        There are countries left which don't want to join? Which ones (apart from Norway and Switzerland)?

        Iceland, Liechtenstein, Grønland (which actually left the EEC as it gained more independence from Denmark).

        Then, of course, some micronations: Åland, Andorra, the Channel Isles, the Faroes, the Isle of Man, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City. Some of them are already partially integrated into the Internal Market.

        Turkey is not even on the same continent (ok half of Istanbul is).

        Turkey wants/ to join (and

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Super_Z ( 756391 )
      The *whole point* of a common market is to make sure each operator gains equal access to every market.
      Deutche Telecom is the incumbent national champion in germany. When it was privatized, it inherited the
      old telecoms infrastructure in Germany. With this inheritance came an obligation to let competitors
      into this infrastructure. The fact that DT *modernizes* this infrastructure should not be an argument
      for a new lockout.

      In addition, Germany is building a national champion in DT. It essentially helps it grow
  • That's great for creating competition once the fiber is already lain. But what's the motivation for laying down the first network of fiber if there isn't one, if you are forced to turn around and give that advantage out relatively cheaply to your competitors? Of course, they could charge unreasonably large fees to lease the lines, but presumably that would be treated the same as not leasing the lines at all under this decision.
    • the choices aren't just :

      1. don't build it
      2. build it and lock it up
      3. build it and charge unreasonably large fees

      there's always the choice of building it and charging reasonable fees. as long as the company and the regulating body can agree on a fair fee, they'll be making money off these fees for a long period of time and should be able to more than recoup their initial investment.

      • here's always the choice of building it and charging reasonable fees. as long as the company and the regulating body can agree on a fair fee

        Ah the sticking point that makes 3 unrealistic. "Fair fee" is rarely agreed upon. That's the nature of "get what the market will bear" capitalism where the company wants as much as it can get. The company has to do this to provide the most return to its shareholders. "Most" return, not "fairest" return. Private companies care nought for fair.

        And so neither build it,

    • What if there is no fiber? I'm guessing all the tubes will clog and the internets will become constipated.
  • So Deutsche Telekom pays to build a large fiber network, and they own that network. They decide they don't want anyone else using it, that's their business. It is a private network built by a private company, and the government has no right to tell them what they can and cannot do with it. Of course that's just a dream, especially since this is happening in Europe, but even in the US you're likely to have the same issues, and it's sad. It will more than likely end up being a good business decision to lease

    • Re:Regulation is never the right answer. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @01:27PM (#18169450)
      It's not that it's THEIR network, such things get hugely funded by local, regional and federal governments. It also runs in public property (the streets) and thus could cost a lot of civilians (driving eg) some money going around traffic while they are working on it.

      Next to that, the law doesn't state that they have to give it away for free, in a 'free business' (or liberal?) market, DT would start charging huge amounts of money for using their network, disproportionate to the actual cost, to keep newcomers out the market. That and DT used to be (and might still be partially) state-owned like in a lot of European countries (Belgium has Belgacom for example)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Umuri ( 897961 )
      You're forgetting that the lines they lay out run across mostly public and private land not owned by the corporation.

      In return for the use of such land, they are obligated to open their network to competitors. It's the argeement most telcos make with their governments to get land rights, as WELL as prevent dozens of networks all wasting space
  • In the UK, BT (the formely state owned Telecom provider, now privatised) is obliged to provide competing operators with wholesale broadband access:

    http://www.out-law.com/page-3519 [out-law.com]

    I'm not sure how similarly this situation mimics that in the article, asides from with BT the EU wasn't involved in the decision.

  • watch out.. my libertarian is acting up today... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Churla ( 936633 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @01:23PM (#18169388)
    If the company paid for rights to the land it's cable goes through. And if the company paid the cost of deploying the fiber and none of it is government funded/subsidized then the company should be able to do as they damn well please with it.

    If you say "develop and deploy this state of the art network which will increase the countries infrastructure and help along network access in the country, but we're going to make you let your competitors use it too" then I would say that's a good incentive to respond with "well then the government should build and maintain it".

    • Missing the larger issue (Score:5, Informative)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @04:09PM (#18172234)
      Much of slashdot is missing the larger issue here. The EC is telling Germany what to do. A couple years ago I warned a German co-worker friend of mine that they must keep an eye on that whole EU/EC/E-whatever or it will try to become a single government over all of Europe. "Oh no, that won't happen" it was all just about having a common currency and other such nice things - the power will remain with the member sta.. err countries. This sure looks like federalism vs states rights all over again. Let's hope the EU doesn't have to have a civil war over it. This isn't just a German issue, all of Europe should be upset about it.
      • Its not very hard, the EU is the European Union, basically it is a framework in which member countries can co-operate. You have the European parliment, this is pretty much what it says on the tin. I vote in a MP he/she goes and tries to propose laws and they debate/watchover about European Union institutions. You have the European Commission, this is basically a watchdog. If the European Parliment makes a law for example all crash helmet safety standards must conform to the EU safety standard then if a coun
  • "Well, we can't make a profit on these lines, or even break even, so we're just going to shut down the whole project."?
    • The same as when Microsoft would say: "Well, we can't make a profit on Windows, or even break even, if we arent allowed to kill off any aspiring competition, so we're just going to shut down the whole project."

      Nothing.

      They can make profit on the lines, they just want to kill of the competition in order to make even more profits and gain a grip on the whole market. I just wonder how the German goverment actally approved of this lunacy, so they have to be attacked by the EU.
  • I'd let the competitors build it and lease it from them. Why invest the capital in a network meant to keep the lines open for your customers when if you didn't, your competitor would have to invest the same capital, get an EU notice and then proceed to force them to let you lease the lines from them?
  • .... Made Rogers cable do this a while ago. The decision from the CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC) is here:

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/eng/Decisions/1999/D T99-11.htm [crtc.gc.ca]

    I'm pretty sure they forced Bell Canada to do the same thing as well.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by greed ( 112493 )

      The difference being, Bell Canada actually did open the plant. And used that as justification for shoving PPPoE down everyone's throat. (And then set their network to drop ICMP MUST FRAGMENT packets.)

      I have never seen a cable internet reseller in a Roger's area, but there's lots of DSL resellers in Bell's area.

      And it's not like Bell's wires are free to the DSL resellers, the CRTC directive just requires that everyone be able to lease space and bandwidth in the appropriate places. Once the line is go

  • While the car/highway analogy is great...why do we have toll roads? Because governments increasingly don't want to fund huge expensive public infrastructure. They want the private sector to shoulder the risk and the financial burden. Not to mention the bureaucracy and just keeping government as small as possible.

    So I'm very much a fan of forcing these carrier type networks to separate their business into 2 parts.
    Ideally, they would even be 2 separate companies.
    1. the network itself
    2. services they provi
  • The competitors are not getting a free ride, they will have to pay reasonable{market bearing} rates to Deutsche Telekom for the use of the lines. Just like in Canada when Rogers and Bell had to open their lines up to competitors - the competitors had to and still do pay for the use of the lines.

  • Lease (Score:1)

    by ajpr ( 921401 )
    Why not give Deutsche Telekom a 3 year (or whatever timeframe is suitable) lease where they have exclusive access. As soon as the lease expires, it becomes open to all competitors. This way DT can make a profit and the freeloaders can jump in after a short wait. If they don't want to wait they can build their own networks.
  • Telekom has their hands in so many unsavory deals, just think of "Toll-Collect"
    the T-Systems operated Autobahn monitoring and automated Toll-Collection system
    so I'm sure they'll find a way around this too. One thing you can be certain off
    is that the additional capacity will not benefit the national internet infrastructure
    per but will then be rented out for example to digital view on demand pay tv services
    Telekom owns shares in.

  • I mean, is their network. Why should they share it? They build it!.

    But anyway, it they want to rent it then they could do it, but they shouldn't be obligated to share their network, then there's no incentive to build a fiber network, I wouldn't do it... If you think about it is stupid

    Ok, it stops monopoly, and stops too new develops and new networks...

  • Inherited monopoly (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Go the EU. This is desperately needed.

    Let's be clear, Deutsche Telekom has inherited a massive market share, as the former state telecom.

    They would never have achieved this in a competitive market. They have vast numbers of lazy, bad-attitude employees and anyone living in Germany knows they cannot deliver the simplest things in a reasonable timeframe.

    Their business arm is worse still -- winning contract after contract by playing on their control of the infrastructure ... and also bribing decision-makers.

    Re

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close