http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19442167 en Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:52:22 EDT Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:52:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19448593 openbox9 : Sure they would have ;) Considering that providing these services wasn't an initial requirement when planning out the network, I find it odd to suggest that the municipality would have planned to lease the infrastructure to other providers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19448593 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:15:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19448553 Sammer : If the incumbents had supported the project in the first place Clarksville probably would have leased the infrastructure to them. By fighting the project because they want to own the infrastructure they screwed themselves.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19448553 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:08:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19442167 openbox9 : Instead of competing with corporations (questionable tangent that has been painfully discussed around here), the municipality should have leased the infrastructure to various providers to alleviate some of the deployment cost...à la Utopia. I'm not so sure that I'd want my town providing telco, TV, internet access either.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19442167 Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:21:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19442041 travelguy : The cable and telcos are so shortsighted on this. I could understand they wouldn't want the competition if a government entity got into the business of selling TV programming or telephone services. I'm not sure I'd want my local government doing that either.

But it makes a huge amount of sense to throw the costs of maintaining the physical plant on a municipality and concentrate on marketing the various TV & voice apps. Kind of like the Utopia model. Then they've been fighting that as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19442041 Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:03:27 EDT