 ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | reply to tschmidt
Re: Urgent-Broadband "CoGeneration" Policy Needed said by tschmidt:
I don't understand how electricity cogeneration precedent applies to municipal high-speed networks? In the case of small electricity producers the problem was how to connect them to customers. The government required utilities to allow them to connect to the power grid and prior to electric deregulation set prices for the power the produced.
Work with me. In this analogy the customers have built a [FTTH] "grid" which has only minimal [local ISP] "juice". We want to motivate the [ILEC CLEC] real "power" producers to help fully power-up the grid and thus help make the private "grid" building business viable (since the 'LEC power producers won't build the new [FTTH] "grids" )
said by tschmidt:
Your post indicates even though high-speed plumbing exists but they are unable to find companies that want to act as ISPs. I was unaware of that problem, could you post some links. As someone not intimately involved in this area I assumed the problems was one of lack of facilities and that once they exist so would interest in using them.
I first noticed it last year while following the Palo Alto trial. They couldn't get ILEC or CLEC phone or cable service on their fiber. Lets allow some of our FTTH users to jump in here to verify the same problem. Local ISPs do seem to be interested -- but they can hardly replace the ILECs and Cable Co's -- on average. SureWest of course is actually a CLEC, vertically integrated company. We need more of 'em to do FTTH the way they've done it.
said by tschmidt:
In the case you state the municipality owns the scarce resource. I can envision regulations that compel them to allow nondiscriminatory access but I don't see how one can compel companies to use infrastructure installed by the municipality.
I'm a moderate who disdains the thought of Government fiat. We can "encourage" and "incent" ILECs and CLECs to service us in the manner we wish. Lets make sure its lucrative for them to do so.
said by tschmidt:
The promise of municipal high-speed networks is the ability to bypass the stranglehold of legacy carriers on first-mile access to allow more nimble players to enter the market. The Telcos and Cablecos ignore this opportunity at their peril but I do not see any reason to compel them to use it.
We are stuck in a rut. The nimble players lack the capital (I should know) and the Government correctly wants the private sector to solve the FTTH problem -- while the People lanquish for want of true broadband. Market forces are often not up to a total paradigm shift -- it needs some help and its not unprecedented to use Government -- wisely.
No reason to disallow anyone access to the fiber -- especially those that can put it to work for us now |
|
| I want it NOW, too. But not at the expense of giving the RBOC's a monopoly position. Which they will surely have where they are first to market.
The real problem is that they will withhold bandwidth in order to insure their circuit switching cash cow.
Please read "The End of the Middle" for more insight. |
|
