That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US. There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain, and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have the same position that Bill Herrin has written from. It takes a real need to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place where spending money is politically feasible. I would add that this is much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable path to getting repaid than an open system.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k > apartments > and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't > have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities > are much less dense. > > I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less > dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network > being built. > >> >>
