how-to block ads
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to oliphant
Re: What would stop them?
I have offered this solution several times.
From a previous posting (some emphasis added), which has it's critics.  Take note of the last 2 paragraphs as I think they are the biggest slap in the face to local incumbents.
I personally want to see a tax and/or bond subsidized nationwide fiber network to every home and office building in the country implemented by the government. I would then like to see a governmental body personally responsible for the leasing, upgrading, and maintenance of this network either directly or through 1 or 2 companies that answer to it.
That's right. 1 line to my house that any service provider I choose can use by simply leasing it from one of the above mentioned. If I want to use SBC for local service so be it, if I want Verizon so be it. If I want Phil's Phone Service and Tackle Shop of Phoenix because I hear how great they are, then so be it. There should not be a single restriction to my choice or to the ability in getting me my choice.
And guess what, the marginal amount of money I spend on any tax hike would be saved exponentially through true competition. If not in pure dollars then it would be through my happiness with the providers I choose and not the ones the highly restricted market does.
I think one of those articles about muni’s hits it dead on the head. Your local incumbents, cable or phone, are not so concerned with muni’s costing communities tax money. They couldn’t care less as they are concerned with protecting their monopolistic markets. Do you think they really care if your taxes go up a few cents for a project that may fail? How many other times have you heard of them whining about this when it was another worthless government project not competing with them but wasting millions in taxes?
In reality it would actually benefit them if these failed. They could then purchase preinstalled fiber for pennies on the dollar and yet they "fear" them because it may waste a few of your tax dollars. Instead they spend millions of your dollars trying to get people like you afraid of them as well. Give me a break, in the long run nothing but good will come of any government sponsored broadband project, even in the unlikely event that they fail.
As noted in another post... Any tax hike (if it is used) to fund such a project would probably be a lot less then the next cable or of universial service hike that will be coming down the pipe. If the incumbents won't do it, then they should step aside and let the people do it and the only way the people can do it is with the governments help. | |
ernieJohnstn
join:2005-02-27
Lilburn, GA
| Subsidized Fiber Network
STOP! HALT! BACK-UP!
I think Skippy is on to something here.
Both parties are going about this all wrong. It's time for a new direction.
What Lafayette wants is a ubiquitous high-speed network to fuel economic growth. What they also need is competition for customer services.
But Lafayette, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication OPen Infrastructure Agency, SaLt Lake City suburbs), iProvo or AnyTown, USA, don't realize that in designing and building their own compLete system, they have limited the scope and fLexibility of the infrastructure. There is no room for upgrades without affecting all users. There is no room for competition and innovation, only differentiated marketing.
iMHO (in My HumbLe Opinion), what the (BeLLSouth) TeLco wants is economic certainty, as in reduced financial risk. They also don't want competition, but this
is the 21st Century.
ALso iMHO, what the (Cox Communications) Cable Company needs is to increase its bandwidth by moving to fiber, though they probably don't know that yet.
How can these entities work together?
At $30,000 / mile or roughLy $6 / foot the largest category of expense in deploying FttH (Fiber To The Home) is in the buried fiber. With fiber costing only about $1 / foot, and the conduits about $0.25 / foot, the largest singLe cost then is in BURYING the fiber conduit!
Therefore, the best thing Lafayette could do is to work with the TeLco, the CabLe company and an overbuilder or Data CLEC (Competitive LocaL Exchange Carrier) to obtain assurances that if they bury conduits (4x) or fiber, most of those companies would build out the electronics necessary to deliver services over those fibers. By providing the raw fiber or multiple conduits, various vendors are able to develop differing services depending upon the perceived market. I for one, would be willing to form a company to compete with the incumbents with a high-end service.
While the world needs fiber to every premise, it is redundant, inefficient and expensive to run multiple fiber pairs to a single location that could have been placed to one that doesn't have it.
How do the munis (municipalities) win?
Besides encouraging investment and development today, they would benefit from the lease of the fibers and the RoW (Right Of Way) AD INFINITUM, or at least for a very long time. I'm estimating about $0.02 / fiber-foot / month or $0.04 / fiber pair. That's $0.48 / year or about a 15-year pay back, after which its mostly profit.
How do the incumbent TeLco and MSO (MuLtipLe cabLe System Operator) win? With lower costs of entry, the risk is reduced. The higher bandwidth means more services and greater sales, as in tripLe pLay+. Raw fiber means they could deveLop various services using 10 MB/s to 1GB/s access speeds.
How do the munis constituents win?
Consumers would benefit from competing providers.
Dig it?
ernieJohnston@MaiL.Com | |
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Glad someone with a very good insight agrees with me on this. As you point out, it simply makes good economical sense and would be the best for the customers. They are the what's important right? Incumbents seemed to have lost focus that as they seem to think it is all about the provider. | |
|
