SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I wonder...
... if they are going essentially the same route as Utah and laying down the infrastructure so that an independent ISP can provide the actual services. I'm too tired to look it up (Friday night. Have to take the daughter to a party. Baby boy doesn't want to sleep...etc). Anybody know the details? |
|
mememe
@pdf.com | It'd make sense. Actually, the incumbents could use that fiber instead of investing. |
|
Hype83
Premium
join:2003-08-19
Lafayette, LA | reply to SRFireside
I live here in Lafayette and my understanding is it is going to stay with the city. So the electric and fiber on the same bill |
|
zitch
join:2002-07-08
Lafayette, LA
| reply to SRFireside
I've talked to the director myself about this, and he really understands what he's selling: an IP fiber pipe within the city of Lafayette. The idea is that anybody within the city on fiber can use the full capacity of the fiber network to connect to anybody else in the city that's also on fiber. Whether that ends being 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps, this is a serious boon for businesses within the city (VPNs, video conferencing, or just transferring huge amounts of data from one branch to another). In other words, it's not just the physical fiber, but the TCP/IP connection that serves the city becomes the infrastructure for everything else (whether it's browsing the World Wide Web, an IP phone system, or a high-definition TV box getting video to display, it all works on top of TCP/IP).
Basically, LUS is providing a triple Internet/Phone/TV package to get the area residents on their side, as it's easier to sell them on "cheaper and faster internet" than on "an IP infrastructure", but what they're really providing is the fiber connection; it looks like they are contracting everything else out as possible.
From what I talked to the director, he's very open to private companies building a link between the fiber network and an Internet backbone, set up a gateway, and sell services as a ISP to residents. Or make deals with content providers and offer TV over IP on the network. It looked like he would be pleased to have multiple companies "compete" with LUS's offerings. And he hopes that new, innovative companies will start to offer services that we haven't even thought of yet.
So yeah, I was a grudging supporter for the LUS fiber plan for a long time before that talk (which was several months ago). After that talk, you can remove the "grudging" part, as much of my wariness of the plan was erased (though not all) as I changed my perspective as to what the "infrastructure" really is. As it is, I'm in a wait-and-see mode when it comes to seeing it in action at home (My company is already using LUS fiber; they've been selling fiber internet to local business for a long time now). |
|
cajun4x4
join:2000-10-02
Baytown, TX
 ·ViaTalk
·Suddenlink
| reply to SRFireside
Yes but from my understanding there are growth issues being experienced on the UTAH network? I am from the area and have some knowledge that when a city in Southwest Louisiana get's into the utility business the rates are not that great. I wonder what will happen when Peer to Peer becomes rampant on the network due to such large pipes and the city has to react. Remember that at least with water, sewage, electricity and the likes there is no possible way to use that utility as a means to take part in something criminal.
On a side note, I think eventually the incumbents will lower there pricing to a level that will make the fiber project very unprofitable and ultimately will probably kill it or at least make it require some support from the tax base to keep it running. |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside  :... if they are going essentially the same route as Utah and laying down the infrastructure so that an independent ISP can provide the actual services. I'm too tired to look it up (Friday night. Have to take the daughter to a party. Baby boy doesn't want to sleep...etc). Anybody know the details? I don't understand why you guys would think of going any other way. If City lays the Fiber Infrastructure, then the Providers just negotiate for the size of the Pipe Connection. I think if the Cities and Communities lay their own Fiber, they will have better control on the Providers. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by alchav :said by SRFireside :... if they are going essentially the same route as Utah and laying down the infrastructure so that an independent ISP can provide the actual services. I'm too tired to look it up (Friday night. Have to take the daughter to a party. Baby boy doesn't want to sleep...etc). Anybody know the details? I don't understand why you guys would think of going any other way. If City lays the Fiber Infrastructure, then the Providers just negotiate for the size of the Pipe Connection. I think if the Cities and Communities lay their own Fiber, they will have better control on the Providers. i personally think the incumbents fear this more then pure city run fiber and ISP. if the city leases out the media for cheap rates to providers it adds the potential for multiple competition instead of just having to compete with the city.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to alchav
said by alchav :I don't understand why you guys would think of going any other way. I have been saying this is the way to go for quite a while now. Which is why I brought up the question. The ONLY way to have fair competition in a system where a single infrastructure is available is to have that infrastructure be just infrastructure and not content. Then lease out access to said infrastructure to the content providers. |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  said by SRFireside :said by alchav :I don't understand why you guys would think of going any other way. I have been saying this is the way to go for quite a while now. Which is why I brought up the question. The ONLY way to have fair competition in a system where a single infrastructure is available is to have that infrastructure be just infrastructure and not content. Then lease out access to said infrastructure to the content providers. You are partly right, when a Community or City lays down Fiber it has to connect to something not just dangle in the breeze waiting for a Provider. Who ever is laying down the Fiber is building a Network, and with this Network comes the Content, but the end User gets to pick and pay for the Content they want. The Incumbents, like you guys call them, can't offer Content until they buy it from a Provider, in bulk or on an individual basis. |
|
