Josh, A city can build a competitive service that is revenue neutral or even a source of income for the city without causing the earth to shift on its axis. Often, in fact, government is in a position to make large up-front capital investments in infrastructure that don’t have a fast enough pay-out to attract profit-oriented investors. Quite often, such cities are not subsidizing the network as you assume here. Most of these tend to be revenue neutral and pay back the capital investment over a ~15-20 year period. Some even end up contributing to the city over time.
Frankly, I wish City of San Jose would do a Fiber to Everyone Layer-1 only competitive access fiber infrastructure project here. Owen > On May 31, 2021, at 10:57 , Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: > > I think it's hilarious when a governmental entity funded by the taxpayers > thinks they have an answer to broadband. If you're collecting funds from > customers, why do you need the City of Sherwood to support your network? > > Josh Luthman > 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:22 PM Brandon Price <pri...@sherwoodoregon.gov > <mailto:pri...@sherwoodoregon.gov>> wrote: > 100/100 minimum for sure. > > In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and > 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps. > > We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census > block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and > hit the current definition's upload speed. > > I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... > > > Brandon Price > Senior Network Engineer > City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon....@nanog.org > <mailto:sherwoodoregon....@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM > To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> > Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the > content is safe. > > > On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote: > > At least 100/100. > > > > We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start > > everyone at if I could. > > > At $50/month or less? > > Maximize number of households of all demographic groups. >
