Muni Fiber and Politics

Ray Van Dolson rvandolson at esri.com
Mon Jul 21 20:41:46 UTC 2014


My municipality (Loma Linda, CA) doesn't offer anything free, but does
provide fiber connectivity (Layer 3) to residents in some portions of
the city.  There were plans at one point to make it available more
broadly, but nearly eight years later I still am not in an area which
has access nor do I think there has been great progress in the
build-out efforts for whatever reasons (costs, lack of demand, etc.).

Ray

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:26:54PM -0500, Aaron wrote:
> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet
> access to it's residents?
> 
> 
> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
> >free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every
> >layer 1 connection"
> >
> >Matthew Kaufman
> >
> >(Sent from my iPhone)
> >
> >>On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
> >>and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
> >>
> >>Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
> >>
> >>-Blake
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> >>>>Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
> >>>>to own fiber networks
> >>>Hi Jay,
> >>>
> >>>Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
> >>>are many things government does better than any private organization
> >>>is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
> >>>exorbitant price.
> >>>
> >>>Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
> >>>built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
> >>>residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
> >>>taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
> >>>access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
> >>>Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
> >>>
> >>>The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
> >>>constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
> >>>communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
> >>>non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
> >>>services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
> >>>Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
> >>>despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Bill Herrin


More information about the NANOG mailing list