nanog mailing list archives

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


From: Jima <nanog () jima us>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:31:47 -0600

On 2014-08-02 15:15, Leo Bicknell wrote:
But if those cities were to build a municipal fiber network like we've described, and pay
for it with 15-20 year municipal bonds the ISP's wouldn't have to bear those costs.  They
could come in drop one box in a central location and start offering service.

I've mentioned it before, but UTOPIA in the Salt Lake City area is set up mostly like this -- it's a multi-city entity that built out the fiber L1/L2 using member cities' bond money, and allows ISPs to provide L3 service over it. Most of the ISPs offered 50/50 or 100/100 service, until UTOPIA upgraded their infrastructure to the point where gigabit/gigabit was viable (7/8 now offer gigabit). As a customer for two years now, I can attest that the service is excellent, far more reliable than providers on other media, and priced at or below the closest alternative offering (which isn't all that comparable to begin with).

Unfortunately, between aggressive lobbying by the incumbent carriers to prevent other cities from joining up (and thus providing greater economies of scale), mismanagement, political disfavor, and budgetary issues, it's left with an uncertain future. There's presently an offer on the table for an Australian investment firm to step in, finish the buildout, and manage the network for 30 years to recoup their costs, but it's seemed to have made the entire project even more politically toxic, decreasing the likelihood of further funding/deployment.

I attended my city's town hall meeting regarding the deal; it was genuinely hard to tell whether some of the concerned citizens were corporate shills, or victims of Stockholm Syndrome at the hands of the duopoly incumbents (which we were repeatedly told provide "good enough" service). At least one complained that the city was wasting money on the existing bond payments (optional, surely) instead of fixing the street in front of their house, a complaint I've been told was also made in other cities' meetings. There were more people speaking up with repeated, unsubstantiated rumors or willful misinformation than there were people who actually understood the ramifications of open, non-monopoly internet infrastructure. (To be fair, there were also well-reasoned persons opposing the project, but they were about as plentiful as the supporters.)

So, in theory, the model is great. In practice, it's too soon to tell -- but only due to layer 8+ problems.

     Jima


Current thread: