[160026] 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 13:05:34 2013
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:03:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org>
To: Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca>
In-Reply-To: <51095E2F.1080701@alter3d.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with th=
e ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive mar=
ket the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old m=
onopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of ou=
r business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our ci=
tizens.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. =20
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance=20
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer=20
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to=20
everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2=20
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but=20
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept=20
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is=20
available.
- Pete
On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
> I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing =
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with=
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. W=
hen the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear tha=
t they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town thi=
s size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that=
is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play=
big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No informa=
tion without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We a=
re pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director be=
lieves that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 p=
rovider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The r=
eality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services =
will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the fi=
rst place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is curren=
tly no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive serv=
ice 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 yar=
d?
>
> 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 f=
act
>> 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
>
>
