Muni Fiber and Politics
Constantine A. Murenin
mureninc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 16:55:15 UTC 2014
On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> 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 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 $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police
> and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay
> for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing
> of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing,
> then ultimately the mortgage)
> - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including
> conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers -
> after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control,
> and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the
> ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later
Yes, it appears that Brentwood, Contra Costa Country, Northern
California (925), has had such a requirement for years.
This ends up allowing someone like Sonic.net to offer Gigabit Fibre
Internet + Unlimited Phone for mere 40$/mo as a final price (they
don't do promotional pricing).
More information about the NANOG