[173391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Wed Jul 23 08:31:02 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEvzmcPiH9P1O6TAU+R9CE0M8-JRmAsdD8NQQENE3W-o3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:30:59 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: "mcfbbqroast ." <bbqroast@gmail.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US.
There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where
its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in
coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some
exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain,
and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of
moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have
the same position that Bill Herrin has written from. It takes a real need
to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place
where spending money is politically feasible. I would add that this is
much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of
the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going
for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k
> apartments
> and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't
> have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities
> are much less dense.
>
> I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less
> dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network
> being built.
>
>>
>>
