On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 > facilities > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? > > In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables > running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU > regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a > project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some > tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street > number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where > point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). > > To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at > whatever speeds they like between two points. > > The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices > for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under > control by regulation. As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is available on equal footing to all comers, that’s about as good as it will get whether run by private enterprise or by the city itself. Owen
