[151592] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joshua.klubi@gmail.com)
Mon Mar 26 05:28:08 2012
In-Reply-To: <0e9896df-924b-4fa7-af2f-f51c5e3b4d2d@email.android.com>
From: joshua.klubi@gmail.com
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>,
"Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:09:31 +0000
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
But they also deserve to have or enjoy the benefits that comes with living=
in the big cities
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 25/03/2012 15:47 Jay Ashworth wrote:
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /act=
ual/ bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to=
lose.
Time to assemble some stats, I guess.
-- jra
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Who cares?
It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal=
deployments.
It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs=
more to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though=
somewhat) to subsidizing that to some extent, but, I'm tired of municipal=
deployments being blocked by this sense of equal entitlement to rural.
The rural builds cost more, take longer, and yield lower revenues. It make=
s no sense to let that stand in the way of building out municipalities.=20=
Nothing prevents rural residents who have the means and really want their=
buildout prioritized from building a collective to get it done.
Subsidizing rural build-out is one thing. Failing to build out municipalit=
ies because of some sense of rural entitlement? That's just stupid.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:42 PM, "Frank Bulk" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban?
>
> In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wis=
h they could do -- serve the most profitable customers.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
>
> <snip>
>
> Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.
>
> The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for
> municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even
> subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate...
>
> offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer can light up
> each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that=20=
> customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer=
> layer 2 or 3 service at all.
>
> High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power
> and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it
> right.
>
> As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own
> the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon
> (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in=20=
> several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint.
>
> See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/
>
> As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 --
> or even layer 2, where the municipality supplies (matching) ONTs, and
> services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data
> service.
>
> I believe Google agrees with me. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink owen@delong.com
> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://www.muninetworks.org/ 2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA http://www.muninetworks.org/ +1 727 647 1274
>
>
>
