----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a topology which allows you to unbundle the tail.
A municipality hasn't much to lose; they can declare a monopoly.
Which was rather precisely the point.
True, but it's the one monopoly where you get a vote. I'm not sure it's fair to call a municipality a monopoly ... but that's just me.
I wasn't clear (again; I have to work harder on that -- it made sense to *me* :-)... A municipality can declare a monopoly on the installation of fiber within its jurisdictional bounds, and *require* anyone who wants to connect its residents to use its fiber; it *owns* (or has easements on) all the spaces necessary to do subterranean fiber (and I believe it leases such easements to power utilities to erect their poles, and may therefore have control over that as well, though I'd have to research that point. Clearly, I think that's a feature, not a but (if you've been following the thread)... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274