Muni Fiber and Politics

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sat Aug 2 07:34:33 UTC 2014


On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote:

> Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost,
> often other games are played (trouble ticket for service
> billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble
> ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14
> days, etc.).
> 
> IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider
> (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure
> provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher
> layers.

Agree.

In reality, though, we've seen Layer 1-only providers 
becoming service providers (even when they previously 
promised the market it would never happen), due to wanting 
to stay "relevant".

I suppose if a Layer 1 provider were a government entity, 
there is a higher chance they would never enter the Layer 2 
or 3 space, but even then, there is strong lobbying in 
politics that this could become a reality.

I've seen it happen a great deal in south east Asia, 
Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, and now even South Africa, 
particularly with Layer 1 providers that were government 
entities built to enable fibre connectivity for management 
of utility services (power, for example) and were then 
tasked to offer Layer 1 services with the remaining fibre, 
but currently find themselves now playing in Layer 2 and 
above to make extra cash for the government.

It's hard...

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140802/67d2244c/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list