In the debate about LLU, much has been made of Property.

From the listing above, most of the debate has conflated two meanings of the word, where their separation would clarify what is being discussed and alleviate the fears of those who are concerned about State confiscation.

1.c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title

This definition covers both the meanings that need to be seperated, the tangible copper, that LLU does not threaten. LLU would not take away Telecom's ownership of the physical infrastructure. There is no suggestion that access would be "given," it would be charged, at a rate who's fairness depends on your faith in the State to set prices.

5. A special capability or power; a virtue

The power of the local loop is that Telecom retains the monopoly control of it at the physical level, and we are beginning to see an ominous growth in efforts to control the use made of the services that run over this otherwise impartial infrastructure, "deep packet inspection" and limited performance to preclude the paying customer from making uses of the service which impact the operators profitabiility. NB. These efforts are sometimes presented under the aegis of protecting other customers from abuses by a small minority.

LLU is about sharing the virtue, not removing the tangible, and if you think that is confiscatory, remember you don't own the mineral resources under your land in this country, nor do you own the airspace above it. These virtues of your property are shared.

All that being said, I agree with those who argue LLU is too late, and implementation now, with changing network architectures underway, will be too vigorously opposed by the incumbent and their skill at twisting out of legislative and regulatory constraint suggests this is their new core competency. Evidence from Australia and the fate of their CDMA cellular network suggest their network decisions aren't as good as they could be. We await the outcome of the Next Generation Network investment, it does in fact more resemble the old, application specific approach of the PSTN, expanded to a "Triple Play," but limited to only the three plays that the operator believes will help them retain their current margins.

Fortunately, the Internet architecture routes around defects, and the worse the behaviour of incumbents, both local and alien, the more apparent the need for a "Third Way" becomes. Implementations, not further discussion and reports, are what is needed. The momentum of municipal networks, both wired and wireless, driven by standards and the lowering cost of entry, both at the center and edge of networks, is growing, despite efforts by beneficiaries of the current model, legislative and otherwise.

There is a growing appreciation of the difference between the connection, and the services delivered over it. One demands co-operation, the other benefits from competition.

Only networks of the people, by the people, for the people deserve protection by the collective.

Will this harm the incumbents? Possibly, left to their own selfish devices, they haven't proved terribly adept at adapting. And if it did harm them, isn't the Bentham utilitiarian approach to favour the greatest good for the greatest number apt?