nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:00:10 -0700
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:34 PM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast () gmail com> wrote:
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly and effectively. I'm a fan of either: Dark fibre to every house. Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
The problem with soft handover is that the monopoly provider is in a place to stifle innovation and creativity by creating a limitation on what kinds of handoffs/protocols/etc. can be supported.
All ran by an entity forbidden from retail. Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISPs (reduced labour to connect user, reduced maintenance) and dark fibre for others (reduced costs, increased control).
I don’t mind an optional soft handover, but dark fiber MUST be a required service. Owen
On 5 Aug 2014 14:11, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote:On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net> wrote:On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote: OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1facilitiesback to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and takeawaytheir customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cablesrunning all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer).To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it atwhatever speeds they like between two points.The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on theprices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is available on equal footing to all comers, that’s about as good as it will get whether run by private enterprise or by the city itself. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics, (continued)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Jay Ashworth (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Eugeniu Patrascu (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Eugeniu Patrascu (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics William Herrin (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Eugeniu Patrascu (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 06)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Matthew Kaufman (Aug 06)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Jay Ashworth (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics mcfbbqroast . (Aug 04)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Owen DeLong (Aug 05)
- Re: Muni Fiber and Politics William Herrin (Aug 05)
- Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) Jay Ashworth (Aug 05)
- Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) Matthew Kaufman (Aug 05)
- Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) Rob Seastrom (Aug 05)
- Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics) Owen DeLong (Aug 07)