battikh wrotei don't think the problem in the situation of a war is that ogero is in control, it's not what makes it a single point of failure. i'm not saying that not having competition and having monopole is not a bad thing, but not in THIS situation. what i mean to say is that even if ogero has the monopole over the international bandwidth, if they had access to a cable from beirut, another one from tripoly and a 3rd one for saida, there wouldn't be a single point of failure anymore. From a redundancy point of view, if it's ogero having access to these 3 cables, or 3 or 10 different companies, from a redundancy point of view, it's the same thing.
and even if you have access to just 1 cable but that 100 companies have access to this single cable, if you cut that cable, the 100 companies are all down. having multiple companies having access to the same international link doesn't create redundancy in this specific case (it does though in other scenarios, but not in a war one).
Okay, you're right, I agree there is no direct relation between the legislation and redundancy,
but (there is always a but with me :) ) I expect a service provider to have a single point of failure and not implement redundancy to spare costs. It might be the same when several companies are accesing the same cable, I am just under the impression (a right one I think) that it will still offer a slighly better level of redundancy (at least the routers and DNS servers etc. are not shared) and has a bigger chance of resulting in multiple international links (different carriers may have different agreements with cable companies). Besides the liberalisation will result in competition and subsequently lower prices, higher demands, and pressure to open new links to increase capacity, and also the availability of more satillite uplinks (which are currently highly legalized) as a backup. Yet that is not a fail safe philosophy, seing how nowadays almost the totality of all asian traffic goes through the suez canal in egypt.
