Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband

Sun Feb 3 21:54:57 UTC 2013

With regards to the layer 1 vs layer 2 arguments:

At the regulatory level, it isn't about what layer is provided, it is
more a question to ensure that a neutral provider of last mile only
sells whoelsale and provides no retail services that compete against
other retailers who buy access to that fibre. (no undue preference onto
itself).

In Canada, we have TPIA regulations for 3rd party access to DOCSIS cable
systems. This is actually done at L3. And while it works, there are a
number of issues related to a cableco acting as a L3 wholesaler. (IPs
assigned to end user belong to the ISP, but are provisioned by the
cableco's DHCP server etc).

PPPoE/DSL systems provide layer2 tunnels which shift much of the
respnsability to the ISP (IP assignements etc). However, PPPoE does not
allow multicast. (and telcos don't want ISPs to use compete against
their own IPTV systems).

Nevertheless, a number if ISPs are starting their own IPTV services over
unicast delivery.

So when a municipality wants to setup a modern broadband system (which
raises property values and attracts businesses to the town), it needs to
consider how the system will be used.

I don't think it is enough to "build it and they will come" (aka: layer
1 dark fibre). You risk it being greatly underused if small ISPs can't
afford to connect to it, and incumbents are in court trying to destroy
the project instead of taking advantage of it.

Are there examples where a muni fibre system in the USA was adopted by
incumbents ?