nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:14:56 -0500 (EST)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elle Plato" <techgrrl () gmail com>
[ attribution lost ]
See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it should be available.It has been my experience that the incumbents largely give small cities the finger until a muni steps in, and makes a profitable go of it. Then they are all about legislation to protect them from the unfairness of it all. The large incumbents are basically a duopoly as it is, and general are not offering anything innovative until they are forced to.
Yup. In fact, late last year, it is my understanding that VZN FiOS said *in public, on the record* that they were done with new buildouts; if you didn't have it, tough luck -- canonizing the assertions we'd all been making for a decade that they would cherry pick, even though they claimed they would not. They're a public corporation; they have no real choice. This is why we grant utilities monopoly franchises, with teeth in them to recapture the Public Good we want from them; none of this has been news for 4 decades, but the fix was in. And in fact, yes, VZN left behind state laws in several states forbidding municipal ownership of communications facilities, which they, effectively, purchased. (The laws, not the facilities)
Running an ISP is hard, and most munis have no experience in it. Then only reason to do it, is because the incumbents refuse to provide service. I don't think munis running networks is any sort of threat to free enterprise. I see them more analogous to rural electric cooperatives that provided electric service when incumbents refused to. Legislating that option away, just lets the duopolies serve the dense urban areas and ignore the less dense areas.
FWIW, the posting to which you're replying assumed that we were talking about municipal service at layer 3+; we weren't, as we later corrected. What we're talking about is acknowledging the high cost of fiber plant buildout, and the natural monopoly it encompasses... and thus the municipal involvement it encourages, in an open access design. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?, (continued)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Scott Helms (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Ray Soucy (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Dan Armstrong (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Eric Brunner-Williams (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? Dan Armstrong (Jan 31)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth George Herbert (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)