LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
reply to 89707828
Re: Non government funded muni-wide systems are OK I'm guessing something like
- taxes pay for the infrastructure maintenance cost, *if* you elect to have internet access. If you don't want internet access, then no maintenance tax.
- then you pay the ISP for your service on top of the public lines. Since the ISP doesn't have any infrastructure maintenance cost, the subscription should be much lower.
Overall, the cost should be the same as any regular broadband, with the advantage that you have competition guaranteed on the lines, since there can't be any monopoly. You also have a 100% guaranteed coverage, since it's what munis usually go for.
The part that's harder to get people into is the initial deployment cost. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't choose to not wire his house. If the guy sells, the house would be valued less, if someone else from the city that paid the initial tax moves into a house, he expects to have the utility built in, etc... But on the other hand, you can't wire a person's house if he chose not to pay the tax for it.
The unpopular solution is to force the whole population to pay for the deployment. To get that done, I suppose you can put up a vote and require at least 75% of ppl that want the infrastructure?
Otherwise, there seems to be other solutions with bonds and stuff, but I don't understand any of it, so I'll stop before I say stupid stuff
But overall, I say that operation of a network should be run by a non-profit driven organisation, whereas commercial exploitation should always be run by private commercial entities competing on the same ground.
My 2 cents only
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison)