jra at baylink.com
Mon Mar 26 14:58:47 CDT 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Soucy" <rps at maine.edu>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > > It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a
> > > topology which allows you to unbundle the tail.
> > A municipality hasn't much to lose; they can declare a monopoly.
> > Which was rather precisely the point.
> True, but it's the one monopoly where you get a vote.
> I'm not sure it's fair to call a municipality a monopoly ... but
> that's just me.
I wasn't clear (again; I have to work harder on that -- it made sense to
A municipality can declare a monopoly on the installation of fiber within
its jurisdictional bounds, and *require* anyone who wants to connect its
residents to use its fiber; it *owns* (or has easements on) all the spaces
necessary to do subterranean fiber (and I believe it leases such easements
to power utilities to erect their poles, and may therefore have control
over that as well, though I'd have to research that point.
Clearly, I think that's a feature, not a but (if you've been following the
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at 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
More information about the NANOG