dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
13

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to political_i

Member

to political_i

Re: I wonder..

"Would it make more sense for a city owned infrastructure and then lease the lines to private providers?"

Absolutely.

They should be treated like roads. If you were a moving company and you went through the trouble to obtain a business license, commercial drivers license, commercial tags, and pay taxes then you can make use of city roads to move a customer's objects from point A to Z.

This should not be any different for ISPs wanting to use the network. Heck there is already a process in place for ISPs to get licensed. As long as you were a CLEC then you should be able to buy access to these networks.

If the city concentrated on delivering a reliable fiber connection to these providers you would see real innovation and competition. Remember how many providers were in the phone books in the late 90s?
onthecake
join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO

1 recommendation

onthecake

Member

How are you going to get tax payers to approve that? IIRC the estimated cost to build out KC was close to 1.2 billion.

If voters have the option to pay that via tax increases vs having a private company front the entire cost at the expense of getting the red tape out of the way I am pretty sure I can guess which way they would lean.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

It appears they are going to pay for it one way or another. In EPB's case we didn't get a vote.
political_i
join:2013-11-12

political_i to battleop

Member

to battleop
I wonder if this is where municipals have had issues and not utilizing the fact that the incumbents would not have to pay for the infrastructure that may or may not be utilized and demonstrating a better ROI for incumbent providers.

The City of Bozeman I know is looking at building a ring for community institutions and from what I have heard, there is not a large level of opposition from the incumbents. The challenge I believe is the pitch.

I would be looking at this model for Portland and major metro areas to spur some serious competition.
onthecake
join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO

onthecake to battleop

Member

to battleop
Getting google fiber is not required. If you want to keep your current carrier you can. I guess I am missing where google is getting $$ from the cities?

At most I have heard they are waving the permit fees or allowing them to do all required work using a blanket permit. Past that I was under the impression that all material and labor was coming out of their pocket and not the cities.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

I didn't say anything about getting cash from the cities. I'm referring to the level of cooperation.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to political_i

Member

to political_i
If there is not a big bitch by the incumbents it is probably because they are only joining community institutions. Start reaching out to the homes and businesses and watch them flop on the floor kicking and screaming like a bunch of 2 year olds.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband to onthecake

Member

to onthecake
was? it's still not even done, they're still spending money. and still won't wire everyone.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to onthecake

Member

to onthecake
Well that is something, making the cities do all the work, that is something, co-locating equipment in city buildings where the city pays the bills- that is cost, and if any legal issues come up- the city is on the hook for that as well. The city is paying for it all. Have you read the document that Google sent out? The cities pay for EVERYTHING up front and hope then Google chooses them or they get services in the next 10years. It's been 3 since Austin was announced and still nothing there. Even KC isn't even finished.