nanog mailing list archives

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


From: John Osmon <josmon () rigozsaurus com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:19:34 -0600

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the

Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to provide
physical link, not higher layer services.

I try to point people to the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho at this point in
the conversation.  They supply dark fiber to commercial entities.

I inherited a network built on it during an acquisition a number of
years ago.  The city was much more responsive than any telco provider.
Pricing was well within reach of smaller providers.


Current thread: