Long distance companies are a model to look toward: You pay based on the company you use, and can and do switch based on the best choices/prices for your usages. As we all know, packet traffic is trackable, especially at the more local routers. It would be very easy to bill based on bandwidth usages at the local routers, if those local neighborhood nodes are 'shared' infrastructural costs among 2 or more companies. Heck, we KNOW they do it now, at the higher levels... companies share network resources at major routers, and pay for bulk usage.
> Look at FiOS. Verizon got the hell out of NH because there's no > money in ut. FairPoint apparently can't afford to keep the copper > maintained, let alone build out fiber. Both of which point to that a shared infrastructure would help solve lowering the overall cost, and increasing competition would cause companies to embrace that option, as opposed to only one company getting the monopoly and having no reason to share. > It's a hard problem to solve. It's not that hard. We have lots of existing models to look at, and see what works. > One idea I've heard that seems like it might be good is "structural > separation". One company runs the lines, but doesn't offer service > over them. Other companies offer service over the common lines. > Lines could be privately owned, or owned by the town and run by > contract, like roads. I've read it's been done successfully in some > smaller European countries. Exactly. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/