Muni Fiber

Mon Mar 26 19:58:47 UTC 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
*me* :-)...

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
thread)...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
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