Muni Fiber and Politics

Bruce H McIntosh bhm at
Tue Jul 22 13:27:37 UTC 2014

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> .....
> > Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any
> > but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them
> > parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher
> > layer services.

In my more cynical moments, I'd suggest that that'd be the only REASON
vendors would put in the enormous time, money and effort required to
install an extensive physical infrastructure - to lock-in that market
segment for their considerably more profitable higher layer services.
In the sort of cutthroat economic milieu wherein we live and work, where
"long term planning" is what, 90 days? 6 months?, how does any company
justify such a level of investment if there isn't going to be a big,
quick payoff for the shareholders?

And consider this one - in states where municipalities are bound by
no-compete legislation, a town or city that is forbidden entry to the
market because it would be "anti-competitive" winds up having to dangle
the lure of a city-backed monopoly to some or other private concern to
get the infrastructure built to meet the demand for service.  That
outcome strikes me as being even more "anti-competitive".  At least, if
the city provides the physical infrastructure, and a vendor-neutral
meet-me point, then any and all providers can come in and *compete* for
hookups and customers.

Bruce H. McIntosh                            bhm at
Senior Network Engineer            
University of Florida CNS/Network Services   352-273-1066

More information about the NANOG mailing list