[173408] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Brunner-Williams)
Wed Jul 23 12:33:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:33:08 -0700
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwMK9ikgWLUXRwnHH9GCi+akh0hgC=q+K-KR3PNUdGiqA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> 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.
I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon
rights-of-way lease only, or row+dark-fiber, or ... were each
incrementally easier to sell, having incrementally larger per-customer
revenue shares.
If anyone has specific bonds, or bonding experiences they can point to
I'd appreciate the pointers.
TiA,
Eric
