On 12/23/10 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's municipal, it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will enable competition by making it practical for competitors to start up, since they'll have trival access to all comers.
Muni-fiber builds do not "by definition serve every address."
But to keep this on topic, Comcast doesn't serve every address either! In Ann Arbor, Michigan (home of NANOG), I spent many hours attending the local cable board meetings. Comcast refused to build toward various *downtown* buildings, because the underground facilities would never pay back the cost ("never" being upwards of 30 years). This is not just an ex-urban issue. When the board explored non-renewal of Comcast's franchise for failing to comply with its contract, they learned that's almost impossible. Court cases around the country side with the industry over municipalities. In an unrelated Michigan case, where a large business signed a written contract (to expand) in exchange for tax abatement (but didn't expand), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the contract was mere "fluff and hyperbole" required to obtain tax breaks and government favors. http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/7723/ It's a "right" to make taxpayers pick up the cost of subsidizing private industry....