[173310] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Osmon)
Tue Jul 22 00:19:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:19:34 -0600
From: John Osmon <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <C133B354-069E-45A8-B969-FA405B0A24F4@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>
> > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
> > constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
> > communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
> > non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
>
> Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to provide
> physical link, not higher layer services.
I try to point people to the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho at this point in
the conversation. They supply dark fiber to commercial entities.
I inherited a network built on it during an acquisition a number of
years ago. The city was much more responsive than any telco provider.
Pricing was well within reach of smaller providers.
