New Zealand Telecom is in the midst of discussions with regulators about breaking itself up into three distinct companies: retail, wholesale and networks. In India, wireless carriers are setting up an independent infrastructure company so two different service providers can concentrate on selling. BT, obviously, has taken the structural separation route. And here in the United States, the old Rochester Telephone Co. agreed to structural separation in exchange for more freedom to operate unregulated lines of business.
While there have been calls for structural separation as a way of enhancing local loop competition, the success of such a policy hinges on the cooperation and willingness of the asset owner to go along. No such cooperation is likely on the part of major U.S. carriers.
The point is that we might agree or disagree about the merits of structural separation as a way of spurring more competition and goodness in communications services, but it simply cannot occur without the cooperation of the asset owners. The idea will resurface again. It always does.
