On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:34 PM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly > and effectively. > > I'm a fan of either: > > Dark fibre to every house. > > Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP. The problem with soft handover is that the monopoly provider is in a place to stifle innovation and creativity by creating a limitation on what kinds of handoffs/protocols/etc. can be supported. > All ran by an entity forbidden from retail. > > Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISPs (reduced labour to > connect user, reduced maintenance) and dark fibre for others (reduced > costs, increased control). I don’t mind an optional soft handover, but dark fiber MUST be a required service. Owen > On 5 Aug 2014 14:11, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu <eu...@imacandi.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> 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 >> >>