----- Original Message -----
From: "JC Dill" <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding* municipalities to charter monopoly transport-only fiber providers, renting to all comers on non-discriminatory terms, which is the only practical way I can see to fix any of this.
The problem is that this should have been addressed 5-10 years ago, when there *were* alternative ISPs who could have provided competition. Now that Comcast has a monopoly on cable, and fiber is so bleeping expensive to install, at best we might get *one* alternative to Comcast, and a duopoly is really no better (for consumers, for the marketplace) than a monopoly.
I believe you misunderstood my assertion. Many local municipalities are doing the trenching themselves (well, generally, subbing it out to a contractor), and then offering the customers out to all IAP comers -- you meet-me in my fibernoc, and we'll cross connect every customer you sell to you. Lots of *other* municipalities would dearly love to do this, but state laws (lobbied for, in many places, by Verizontal) make this *illegal*. Wonder why Verizon would want to do *that*... See http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2010/03/15/tech_tt_fiber_fios.cnnmoney... and also http://www.freepress.net/files/mb_telco_lies.pdf And ORA's Mike Loukides: http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/google-fiber-and-the-fcc-natio.html and a whole lot more here: http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en Those links from the consumer-level piece I wrote on this earlier this year: http://baylink.pitas.com/#LASTMILE Cheers, -- jra