[139125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The growth of municipal broadband networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey S. Young)
Sun Mar 27 17:31:16 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DE0E80D542147239C7F416E289278FA@DELL16>
From: "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:31:11 +1100
To: Michael Painter <tvhawaii@shaka.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 27/03/2011, at 6:35 PM, "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii@shaka.com> wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
>>>> As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
>>>> the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort
>>>> monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
>>> As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded
>>> in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have
>>> citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber;
>>> I can find some.
>>> Cheers,
>>> -- jra
>> Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind
>> doing the right thing.
>> Owen
>=20
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
>=20
While I agree that laws can and should be changed and I agree that the
USA's telco privatization scheme no longer fits the pace of technology,=20
those who believe have a long way toward momentum. Those of us who=20
believe in a muni or a national broadband infrastructure are opposed by a=20=
mountain of money (to be made) and an army of lawyers. For instance,=20
when this army couldn't hope to have muni networking outlawed on a=20
national basis they turned to each state legislature. They're ticking off t=
he=20
states one by one:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/muni.htm
jy=
