Muni Fiber and Politics

Fri Aug 1 07:30:57 UTC 2014

Govt controlled, please.

We have tried both in NZ.

Before telecom provided internet and ran lines. They were equally shit at
both and apparently there were many issues for other ISPs using the lines.

Now Chorus owns the and they insist that $40+/mo for wholesale DSL is fair.
I think this is a sector the government would do well in. Unlike being an
actual ISP there's no ambiguity (oversubscription, customer service, etc).
Just provide a gigabit line with no congestion and solid uptime, or a fibre
pair with solid uptime. End of story.
On 1 Aug 2014 19:08, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
>
> > This would be my humble suggestion:
> >
> > - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
> > default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
> > terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS.
> >
> > - lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed
> > service to soft hand over to ISPs (think 96 Gbps lines
> > to 2 10gbps ports). Perhaps upgrading so such a ratio
> > never becomes congested could be a requirement?
> >
> > -  lines provider also rents individual lines to ISPs
> > which they can use directly. Rent should be lower than
> > soft handover.
> >
> > This way ISPs can easily offer services. POTS over VoIP
> > can be setup on installation of the terminal (so
> > handover to the ISP is seamless). Finally business and
> > residential services can also be provided over the fibre
> > directly (this will be attractive to ISPs with many
> > ports, to reduce costs, and premium/business ISPs to add
> > control).
> >
> > - ideally the lines provider would aid in providing cheap
> > backhaul from the co (while still allowing 3rd party
> > users to bring fibre in).
>
> Wholesale mode. Doable.
>
> Works best if the lines provider is not a service provider;
> or regulation in your market ensures a service provider who
> is also a lines provider is mandated to unbundle at
> reasonable cost.
>
> Mark.
>