[139066] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The growth of municipal broadband networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Sat Mar 26 01:56:52 2011
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:56:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110325201104.GA38866@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the
> home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and
> operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and
> operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area
> (think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
+1.
The layout of the old copper telephone layout is basically sound, you
aggregate thousands of households via X length of cable into a single
place, then you let anyone who wants to, rent space/power in there to put
in their equipment and rent this fiber to the end user
household/enterprise.
Do this with fiber to the home, and also provide rentable long haul fiber
(to the next town etc) and rent out this infrastructure at decent
pricepoint, you have a situation with a very low entry-cost for new
players which is great for competition and in the long run, for the end
customer.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
