alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  reply to SRFireside
Re: I wonder...
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. |
|
