Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

Daniel Corbe corbe at
Mon Jul 28 19:17:32 UTC 2014

I don't have much to add to this discussion, but...

Richard Bennett <richard at> writes:

> I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs
> to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the
> entry of government into this market suppresses investments by
> independent fiber contractors and doesn't necessarily lead to optimal
> placement of new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving
> that to be the case, I believe.

People will eventually come to rely on the Internet as a critical piece
of infrastructure.  And many already do.  Provisioning service and
routing packets needs to be separated from provisioning physical access
in any form.  If the governments need to step in to do the latter, I'm
happy for them to do so as long as it falls under some lattice of
framework similar to the public utilities commission.  So that the
localities responsible for maintaining the infrastructure are compelled
to act responsibly. 

Or if you *really* want to be in the business of owning infrastructure
on a commercial basis, your business should be wavelengths, not packets.

> In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all
> possible networks, it's just the devil we know.


More information about the NANOG mailing list