Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
 ·VOIPo
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to Matt
Re: OK> What about At&t?
Absolutely true. I'm in a Uverse area, but the deployment hasn't reached my neighborhood yet. Since AT&T is already wiring up Apex, I doubt our town would consider a muni project (even though we are also an electrical co-op member).
Here's my feeling on the anti-muni bills: They do need to pass one, but it should be very simple.
Any municipality that feels the need to build out its own network should be allowed to do so, without restriction from selling service to residents. However, any municipality that chooses to build its own network must give up all local regulatory power over the telcos and cablecos regarding cost controls and service level requirements (e.g. local franchise agreements).
Suppose a town were to build a fiber network and operate it as a common carrier--operate the physical plant and resell the service to AT&T/TWC/whoever. Could such a model fly? In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| said by Fisamo  : In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? Or liabilities that other providers being hooked for now.
Does the RIAA/MPAA get to inspect packets or do they make the muni do it?
Do this impose throttling at peak hours? |
|
ericdaboy
join:2005-09-21
West Palm Beach, FL
| said by S_engineer :said by Fisamo : In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? Or liabilities that other providers being hooked for now. Does the RIAA/MPAA get to inspect packets or do they make the muni do it? Do this impose throttling at peak hours? Do you know how the reports get to the abuse dept of the ISPs from the MPAA or RIAA? |
|
