On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. > > But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the > capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. > > So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever > seen a water utility that doesn't charge? > > Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in > California: > > - California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay "impact fees" when > building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new development, may > include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police > and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay > for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing > of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing, > then ultimately the mortgage) > > - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including > conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers - > after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control, > and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the > ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later
Yes, it appears that Brentwood, Contra Costa Country, Northern California (925), has had such a requirement for years. This ends up allowing someone like Sonic.net to offer Gigabit Fibre Internet + Unlimited Phone for mere 40$/mo as a final price (they don't do promotional pricing). http://sonic.net/brentwood C.