[121457] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Grant Funding
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Andersen)
Tue Jan 19 23:02:50 2010
From: David Andersen <dga@cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <30F4F8E9-3101-4352-BD54-CC427BE62BAA@puck.nether.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:02:04 -0500
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You (the OP, not Jared) might also take a look at what the UTOPIA folks =
have been doing in Utah. It's been a state-funded, not federal-funded, =
project (I *believe* -- I may be incorrect in the details; I'm not =
involved and it's been a while since I looked at them), but they've met =
with some success.
-Dave
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>=20
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> What do you want to know? We were the first NTIA grant announced. =
$32 million project to build rural *dark* fiber networks. The model =
was to form a new company which would be carrier neutral and just build =
and maintain rural dark fiber. A carrier's carrier; structural =
separation; prices based on cost plus margin, not what the market would =
bear, open access, non-discrimination.... This model seemed to resonate =
with the Feds. The local incumbents still seem to have a hard time =
believing we would get a government subsidy and then immediately give it =
away. A model where any carrier, including them, could have access to =
dark fiber on equal terms is beyond their ken.
>>=20
>=20
> This is similar to what I have been doing research on. I wonder if =
the cellular coverage outside the I-95 corridor will get better as a =
result of your efforts...
>=20
> I really should have gotten fed up with my local [ineffective] =
incumbents with enough time to develop a similar approach.
>=20
> I do wonder if the upcoming FCC broadband work will result in a =
similar policy being adopted. "We're all just overlay networks of the =
fiber" is a nice approach.
>=20
> - Jared
>=20
