On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: .....
Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher layer services.
In my more cynical moments, I'd suggest that that'd be the only REASON vendors would put in the enormous time, money and effort required to install an extensive physical infrastructure - to lock-in that market segment for their considerably more profitable higher layer services. In the sort of cutthroat economic milieu wherein we live and work, where "long term planning" is what, 90 days? 6 months?, how does any company justify such a level of investment if there isn't going to be a big, quick payoff for the shareholders? And consider this one - in states where municipalities are bound by no-compete legislation, a town or city that is forbidden entry to the market because it would be "anti-competitive" winds up having to dangle the lure of a city-backed monopoly to some or other private concern to get the infrastructure built to meet the demand for service. That outcome strikes me as being even more "anti-competitive". At least, if the city provides the physical infrastructure, and a vendor-neutral meet-me point, then any and all providers can come in and *compete* for hookups and customers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066