On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote: > On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> >> The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile competition; > > I agree. > >> see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding* >> municipalities to charter monopoly transport-only fiber providers, renting >> to all comers on non-discriminatory terms, which is the only practical >> way I can see to fix any of this. > > The problem is that this should have been addressed 5-10 years ago, when > there *were* alternative ISPs who could have provided competition. Now that > Comcast has a monopoly on cable, and fiber is so bleeping expensive to > install, at best we might get *one* alternative to Comcast, and a duopoly is > really no better (for consumers, for the marketplace) than a monopoly.
This is why I suggested it might take regulatory action, or changes in state laws. If I want to start up a coop, or convince my local county/state they should be a neutral provider of conduits/dark fiber as roads are rebuilt, etc.. there are various barriers. Even if the cost would be nominal. I scaled-up some quotes to be an area-wide effort for fiber down every public road ROW, and came back with $100mil. (you private road types need to shell out your own cash for that leg). The barriers to doing this as a project are well known. Even if you don't like ars, they have decent articles on these topics: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/monticello-appeals-court-win.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/telco-wont-install-fiber-sues-to-keep-city-from-doing-it.ars Similar to the above, I could not even get Comcast to give me a quote to build to my area. AT&T ... good luck getting any data from them. I can tell they are filling in the gaps based on the trenching/boring going on, but there's no good way to motivate them. And even if I decided to drop $10k to install a bunch of POTS service for 1 month to force a build, who knows if that build would bring the right level of service. (As the POTS is regulated with a low install fee). The incentives are clearly skewed here, but without that $100mil, reaching the 125k properties (111k residences) in my local area may be tough. (Note: there may be actual cost savings by not running down *every* public road, but using public road mileage and property counts seemed like a good method without actually designing the final fiber plant). My notes are here: http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84 The reply I received from my elected reps: "Additionally, offering a millage to build a network for the general public may violate recent provisions within the Michigan Telecommunication Act." - Jared
