----- Original Message -----
From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>
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.
That's one problem, yes. My solution there is to tap the Third Local ISP, who are already the competitive provider over Bright House, and have them at the letter of intent stage, at least informally, before I go to the council with a proposal.
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.
And this argument, Bill, plays right into my hands. Thanks. 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 #natog +1 727 647 1274