Actual public financed non-muni fiber is skipping the easy parts and deploying only a few of the hard parts. (current actual results of USF)
How is that an improvement? Owen On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if > /actual/ bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to > lose. > > Time to assemble some stats, I guess. > -- jra > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > Who cares? > > It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal > deployments. > > It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs > more to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though > somewhat) to subsidizing that to some extent, but, I'm tired of municipal > deployments being blocked by this sense of equal entitlement to rural. > > The rural builds cost more, take longer, and yield lower revenues. It makes > no sense to let that stand in the way of building out municipalities. Nothing > prevents rural residents who have the means and really want their buildout > prioritized from building a collective to get it done. > > Subsidizing rural build-out is one thing. Failing to build out municipalities > because of some sense of rural entitlement? That's just stupid. > > Owen > > > Sent from my iPa > d > > On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:42 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnk...@iname.com> wrote: > > > How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban? > > > > In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish > > they could do -- serve the most profitable customers. > > > > Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM > > To: NANOG > > Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc) > > > > <snip> > > > > Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John. > > > > The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for > > municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even > > subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate... > > > > offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer > can > light up > > each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that > > customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer > > layer 2 or 3 service at all. > > > > High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power > > and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it > > right. > > > > As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own > > the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon > > (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in > > several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint. > > > > See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/ > > > > As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 -- > > or even layer 2, where the municipality suppli > es > (matching) ONTs, and > > services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data > > service. > > > > I believe Google agrees with me. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > > j...@baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC > > 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover > > DII > > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 > > 1274 > > > > > >
