There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to
everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is
available.
- Pete
On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When
the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they
would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size,
until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is
reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big
brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information
without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are
pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes
that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider
rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is,
from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back
to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide
a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider
in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely
translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us>
To: "Jay Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca>
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
network.
As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
taxpayers.
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
my municipality?
Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
Regards,
Bill Herrin