Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

This wouldn't be for the purposes of entering a new market, but an opportunity to shed your high-cost legacy 
infrastructure and provide better service in existing markets. 




Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all 
providers converged on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor () biggeeks org>, "nanog list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:46:16 PM 
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) 







On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net > wrote: 




The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of 
the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. 






If your whole model is monopoly services (att/verizon/cabletown) why would you bother entering a service area where you 
might have competition? (and an operational model which is radically different from your other properties) 


I don't think it's necessary for the 'incumbent telco' (or cabletown) to need/want to participate with the municipal 
dark-fiber-equivalent deployments, is it? 
All that's needed is a couple (one to start) local 'isp' that can service what is effectively a light-duty L1 and 
ethernet plant, and customer service(s).