Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d () alter3d ca>]

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.   
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance 
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer 
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to 
everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but 
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept 
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is 
available.

- Pete


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
> I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive 
> environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in 
> the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we 
> started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't 
> play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having 
> said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our 
> community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my 
> perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first 
> place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a 
> competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us>
> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com>
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca>
> > > It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> > > federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
> > > offering. Wholesale only.
> > >
> > > Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
> > > involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
> > > service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
> > > network.
> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
> taxpayers.
>
>
> > It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
> > a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
> > be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
> > subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
> > my municipality?
> Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
> returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
> the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
> customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
> had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin