This wouldn't be for the purposes of entering a new market, but an opportunity to shed your high-cost legacy infrastructure and provide better service in existing markets.
Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgre...@biggeeks.org>, "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:46:16 PM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. If your whole model is monopoly services (att/verizon/cabletown) why would you bother entering a service area where you might have competition? (and an operational model which is radically different from your other properties) I don't think it's necessary for the 'incumbent telco' (or cabletown) to need/want to participate with the municipal dark-fiber-equivalent deployments, is it? All that's needed is a couple (one to start) local 'isp' that can service what is effectively a light-duty L1 and ethernet plant, and customer service(s).
