[173365] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 22 16:00:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53CE82D4.6080803@wholesaleinternet.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:55:36 -0700
To: Aaron <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jul 22, 2014, at 08:27 , Aaron <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective:
>=20
> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they =
laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for =
free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for =
free?
I think the project would be enjoined before it could get permitted. I =
don't think they'd be allowed to move a single backhoe in support of the =
project.
> Do you think the LECs would come unglued?
Definition: LEC -- Local Exchange Carrier -- A law firm masquerading as =
a communications company.
Yeah, I think they'd come unglued and wallpaper every courthouse between =
city hall and the state capital until such a project was not only =
illegal, but any city that considered such a notion faced huge fines for =
even thinking about it.
That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea, just what I think would =
actually happen.
Owen
>=20
> Aaron
>=20
>=20
> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually =
in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes =
to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city =
funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been =
public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and =
such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling =
expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service =
beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service.
>>=20
>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've =
generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for =
revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services =
because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on =
a cost-recovery basis.
>>=20
>> Miles Fidelman
>>=20
>> Aaron wrote:
>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet =
access to it's residents?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in =
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 =
connection"
>>>>=20
>>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>>>=20
>>>> (Sent from my iPhone)
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always =
on
>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other =
utility?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> -Blake
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> =
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for =
municipalities
>>>>>>> to own fiber networks
>>>>>> Hi Jay,
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. =
There
>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private =
organization
>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at =
an
>>>>>> exorbitant price.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; =
once
>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or =
via
>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar =
happen in
>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure =
side.
>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com =
bill@herrin.us
>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Aaron Wendel
> Chief Technical Officer
> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> (816)550-9030
> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
