Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
At a risk of getting into politics, the idea of having people sharing infrastructure governed by contracts sounds very good from the point of view of lawyers and accountants but is a pain in the butt from the point of view of engineers. Speaking as an engineer, that is. However, since we* are run by lawyers and accountants that is what we get, and a damned bad job they're making of it to.
Back on topic now.
*we as in the UK, not we as in ntl  |
I could only see it working if all the networks were owned by one company, who had a fixed price for all the operators/providers. unfortunately I guess it would never work and would probably end up as a similar situation we have with the railways.
No matter what company was in charge of the networks, they would keep investment to a bare minimum. I think this LLU sounds like a good idea to the people controlling the purse strings, but as you say in practice no matter what company its going to be a nightmare to engineer and provide a reliable service to the customer that is within your control.
I think LLU will keep prices competitive, but will cost off-net users in terms of reliability and downtime in the real world when there are faults. With everyone trying to cut costs to the bone, it will be a matter of passing the buck between companies instead of internal departments. it will be more difficult to bang some heads together when the disagreements are between two different companies.