[151638] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Muni Fiber
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Wed Mar 28 00:45:58 2012
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Jay Ashworth'" <jra@baylink.com>,
"NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <12434755.8395.1332791927186.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:45:26 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I don't think a muni can prevent the ILEC from installing fiber in their =
RoW....
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com]=20
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:59 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> > > It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a
> > > topology which allows you to unbundle the tail.
> >
> > A municipality hasn't much to lose; they can declare a monopoly.
> >
> > Which was rather precisely the point.
> True, but it's the one monopoly where you get a vote.
> I'm not sure it's fair to call a municipality a monopoly ... but
> that's just me.
I wasn't clear (again; I have to work harder on that -- it made sense to
*me* :-)...
A municipality can declare a monopoly on the installation of fiber =
within
its jurisdictional bounds, and *require* anyone who wants to connect its
residents to use its fiber; it *owns* (or has easements on) all the =
spaces
necessary to do subterranean fiber (and I believe it leases such =
easements=20
to power utilities to erect their poles, and may therefore have control
over that as well, though I'd have to research that point.
Clearly, I think that's a feature, not a but (if you've been following =
the
thread)...
Cheers,
-- jra
--=20
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink =
jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think =
RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land =
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 =
647 1274
