Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued.
But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the
capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes.
So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever
seen a water utility that doesn't charge?
Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in
California:
- California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay "impact fees"
when building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new
development, may include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads,
waterworks, police and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you
buy a new house, you pay for the full cost of the infrastructure behind
it (built into the financing of course - first the construction
financing, then the bridge financing, then ultimately the mortgage)
- I have seen some California communities at least toy with including
conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers
- after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light
control, and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber
in the ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later -
fyi: a street cut typically takes 1 year off pavement lifetime, unless
very carefully repaved - practically nobody does a good job of
permitting street cuts to avoid this - San Antonio being a really
notable exception (I worked for a GIS firm that built their right-of-way
management system - they were a real rarity in good right-of-way
management practices)
- so I could see building the capital cost of a FTTH network into new
housing (the same way water and phone wiring is standard) - but that's
not free, and that still begs the question of who lights the fiber
- still, the LECs would come unglued (and have)!
Miles Fidelman
Aaron wrote:
So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective:
What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they
laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access
for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit
speeds for free?
Do you think the LECs would come unglued?
Aaron
On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually
in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA
comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have
been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've
seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space
on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access,
in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work
successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a
metropolitan area service.
When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've
generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need
for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial
services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and
they operate on a cost-recovery basis.
Miles Fidelman
Aaron wrote:
Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet
access to it's residents?
On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every
layer 1 connection"
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <iki...@gmail.com> wrote:
My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
-Blake
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com>
wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
municipalities
to own fiber networks
Hi Jay,
Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.
Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar
happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable
and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
