Muni Fiber and Politics
josmon at rigozsaurus.com
Tue Jul 22 04:19:34 UTC 2014
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > 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
> Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to provide
> physical link, not higher layer services.
I try to point people to the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho at this point in
the conversation. They supply dark fiber to commercial entities.
I inherited a network built on it during an acquisition a number of
years ago. The city was much more responsive than any telco provider.
Pricing was well within reach of smaller providers.
More information about the NANOG