Thats exactly why its leased, not owned by the operator. The fiber owner only has 3 customers at most, the operator only has the number of subs and their lease cost. Two different business models. The owner has to maintain their plant, because the lease says so, has to be built into the budget. The operator only has to maintain their electronics and their customers because their competitor says so. For the reasons you mentioned there will never be competition, just a single operator milking. If the gubmint wouldnt talk about as sparking competition, it wouldnt be such an irritating lie they tell when they hand out tax dollars like candy. Half the copper plant that frontier owns but doesnt maintain was built withfree gubmint cheese. We see how that turns out since nobody but the consumer is thereto hold them accountable for having "no ports on the switch"
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 4:27 AM <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand the appeal of that model, but I see drawbacks also. > > > > The towns that need that kind of funding tend to be small and sparse. > Nobody’s built them already because they weren’t cost effective. Even if > the fiber is already there it has to be maintained and repaired so there’s > ongoing cost to cover. So how many customers does it take to make it > worthwhile to devote capital and manpower to it? 200? 500? 3000? That > number is going to be different for different companies, but there’s going > to be a number that makes it worthwhile. > > I looked at a project like this for a town of 1800 people where due to the > low density they were looking at bringing the fiber back to 4 separate > sites. So I figured if we put in 4 OLT’s and we got the majority of the > HHP that wanted service then it would be ok. If we have to divide those > customers among an unknown number of other participants…..and potentially > with future participants also, then it becomes questionable. > > > > In other words: you can slice up a pie and everybody gets pie, but if you > slice up a football then nobody can play football. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:42 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Govt money > > > > My fantasy is to be able to build out a town with dual ducts. Dual through > distribution all the way to the house. One is populated with dual gpon. One > duct set is empty. Either of the built gpon can be leased or the empty > duct. No harware, just fiber and duct. This opens that town to an > affordable option for consumers since 3 providers can operate generating > actual competition, not the bullshit monopolies the gubmint is funding now. > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 4:25 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) < > li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > > Personally I'd also like to see a requirement that any last mile plant be > built using the model where they bring a single strand or two from each > home to a central point in each neighborhood. Then, they must offer > access to those strands on a non discriminatory basis. Bonus points if > you structure it such that the fiber access piece must not generate any > meaningful profit. > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 2:59 PM Cameron Crum <cc...@murcevilo.com> wrote: > > Hey all, if you have a few spare minutes, I'd love for you to take a look > at these comments made to the HTIA about the best way to use all the new > money from the infrastructure bill. This is from one of the companies I'm > currently working with. Basically they are advocating for the money to be > spent on a robust middle mile nationwide network open to anyone with local > govt or private entities providing the last mile via wireless or fiber > where fiber makes sense. This is in lieu of just handing money to the big > carriers again, because we all know how that works. I know we would > appreciate any comments on the ntia site, especially those in support of > the proposition. Link is > > > > https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NTIA-2021-0002-0318 > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
