SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to tsu9
Re: fine by me! bring out the compeition
This sort of thing is happening already with the current telco and cableco infrastructure. They have already dug into your property and put up ugly boxes. If you want competition in your area the conventional way that means more companies need to be granted ROW to build their infrastructure to provide you service. That, to me, is much more wasteful.
The difference here is the people will not be held by a single provider. Whomever owns the infrastructure leases the line out to the content providers. Much like how DSL proliferated a few years ago.
It would mean the rights of way would be used only once. If Time Warner wants to offer cable in your area they won't need to dig into your yard again to do it. They can just lease the fiber. Same goes for Comcast, Earthlink, ATT, Verizon, Mom&Pop DSL, and so on. It would greatly lessen the burden of ROW to the community while at the same time giving the community a full plate of competitive offerings. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Given that companies do not want to lease any form of their network to their direct competition, I'd say this idealogy is in for "the good fight." I wouldn't mind the idea, if not for the greed that is bound to get in the way.
Realistically speaking, if the ROW were expanded to the fiber/groundwork laid to the home, this could work; however, realistically speaking, the companies would fight this just as much as they're fighting to ignore the ROWs and whatnot already. It won't happen. Further, the idea that fiber/groundwork be laid unto the ROW would be hotly disputed as well, unless it were very carefully and systematically constructed in such a way to not be destructive to the business end (and political end)--something like a public ROW box governing the neighborhood's homes' conntectivity, with appropriate availability to providers.
In short, fantastic dream, but things like this will not happen. The fiber/groundwork/copper/etc simply are not deemed a necessity, yet, for this to come to pass. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers.
Frankly each municipal should just build their own small network and let whoever provide service on it. When it's miniaturized the costs are really quite manageable. This way the telcos couldn't complain about infrastructure costs, and there would be an actual free market system, so government regulation wouldn't be needed for things like net neutrality. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by Ahrenl  :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details:
»netparadox.com/
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill :said by Ahrenl :They wouldn't be leasing to their competition because they wouldn't be in the business of providing service. It's actually the way it used to be until the service providers decided to buy the pipeline servicers. This is not a new thought. See this link for details: » netparadox.com/ It's certainly not, but it's still right.. |
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :That's a great "fail fast" letter to the FCC. Truly. I was going to comment on that as well. |
|
