[160021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Art Plato)
Wed Jan 30 12:36:05 2013
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:37:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUEmY6-YQ-mBNZoYLZX7wVNYX26zkd3BvWodtmr82nrZA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing se=
rvices to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with C=
harter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. Whe=
n the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that =
they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this =
size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that i=
s reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play b=
ig brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No informati=
on without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are=
pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director beli=
eves that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 pro=
vider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The rea=
lity is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services wi=
ll fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the firs=
t place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currentl=
y no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive servic=
e to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>
To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
>
>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
>> offering. Wholesale only.
>>
>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
>> network.
As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
taxpayers.
> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fa=
ct
> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
> subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
> my municipality?
Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
