Muni Fiber and Politics
Miles Fidelman
mfidelman at meetinghouse.net
Tue Jul 22 16:09:05 UTC 2014
Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued.
But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the
capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes.
So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever
seen a water utility that doesn't charge?
Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in
California:
- California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay "impact fees"
when building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new
development, may include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads,
waterworks, police and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you
buy a new house, you pay for the full cost of the infrastructure behind
it (built into the financing of course - first the construction
financing, then the bridge financing, then ultimately the mortgage)
- I have seen some California communities at least toy with including
conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers
- after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light
control, and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber
in the ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later -
fyi: a street cut typically takes 1 year off pavement lifetime, unless
very carefully repaved - practically nobody does a good job of
permitting street cuts to avoid this - San Antonio being a really
notable exception (I worked for a GIS firm that built their right-of-way
management system - they were a real rarity in good right-of-way
management practices)
- so I could see building the capital cost of a FTTH network into new
housing (the same way water and phone wiring is standard) - but that's
not free, and that still begs the question of who lights the fiber
- still, the LECs would come unglued (and have)!
Miles Fidelman
Aaron wrote:
> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective:
>
> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they
> laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access
> for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit
> speeds for free?
>
> Do you think the LECs would come unglued?
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually
>> in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA
>> comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have
>> been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've
>> seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space
>> on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access,
>> in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work
>> successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a
>> metropolitan area service.
>>
>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've
>> generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need
>> for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial
>> services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and
>> they operate on a cost-recovery basis.
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the NANOG
mailing list