http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r12792400 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:23:48 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:23:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12820483 ColdFiltered : Hmm, if a city builds a muni and can show that it will be in the black, like a utility cooperative, and hence make it attractive enough to buy, maybe a city could profit from their muni sale and build other community infrastructures.

I doubt any city council will agree, upon a muni-system sale, to not compete in the future. So, a repeat performance can proceed--maybe as planned.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12820483 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:17:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12792400 plk : I have been some what keeping up on the muni deployments of fiber. So please bare with me if this is an old idea.

If you build it....someone will buy it.
What I see happening is the Bells are getting their monopolies back. Sooner or later they are going to stop line sharing all together. Now this is going to be a disaster for people like Yahoo, AOL et.al They might start buying out muni's fiber deployment????

Secondly, the Bells can't deploy fast enough, and/or don't have the capital, and /or don't see a large enough threat right now. This scenario is one of many the Bells want to avoid. However, I don't see the Muni's arguing in favor of deployments from this angle.

I think it's possible.
1. The Bells don't want a 3rd party spoiler
2. They can't deploy fast enough right now.
3. They are not interested at this time.
4. They tend to buy existing systems instead of overbuilds despite costs.
5. 3rd party's possible interest.....
The list goes on......

So has this issue already been discussed and I just didn't see it? Looking for feedback from you all.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 2.8/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12792400 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:37:30 EDT