Highly agree with this experience being shared. We have had some dealings with municipal related fiber networks (not naming any names or giving any hints for obvious reasons) where shortly after providing the proposal to the customer, the municipal "sales vultures" went in and undercut our pricing (with Internet access included) to below what the fiber loop itself was priced at to us.
Paul -----Original Message----- From: Martin Millnert [mailto:milln...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:05 PM To: Paul Graydon Cc: nanog@nanog.org list Subject: Re: The growth of municipal broadband networks Paul, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul Graydon <p...@paulgraydon.co.uk> wrote: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their- own-broadband-networks.ars > > Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks, > but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website' > (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) (snip) > I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision > towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the > competing views I've heard so far are: (snip) With experience from Sweden, which has seen many varying incantations of these sort of networks, I have this hopefully useful bit to share: It's OK for tax-payer money to build layer-1 infrastructure if it decides so, that non-tax payer money can sell services on, but fail starts to happen the very moment they decide to go higher than that. That's... all. Regards, Martin
