Muni network ownership and the Fourth
brunner at nic-naa.net
Wed Jan 30 00:37:34 UTC 2013
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
> Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could and should populate its rights of way (Eugene's public
utility delivers water and power to residential customers) with
> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network.
My guess is that if the offering to use municipal transport was made
to any access provider except those franchise incumbents (Comcast for
ip/cdn, Verizon, ip/ss7), they would sue, under some equity theory or
another, so the "last mile competitively neutral" really means the
City is paying to do a buildout the local duopoly franchies won't, and
the equity to access providers will be limited to the City owned
infrastructure, not the infrastructure the duopolies have built out in
the past under City granted franchise.
Well, got to read some pleadings and FCC filings related to Oregon law
and municipal authority to impose rights-of-way ("ROW") compensation
More information about the NANOG