The growth of municipal broadband networks
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-... Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks, but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website' (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) The whole scenario around municipal broadband networks in a hopefully unbiased nutshell: Increasing numbers cities and counties seem to be getting frustrated with what they see as the lack of progress in broadband speeds from their incumbent provider(s) (even after incumbent provider(s) have been approached requesting faster speeds) and are deciding to do it themselves. Chattanooga, Tennessee has become the poster child for the idea, able to offer 1Gbps to users and businesses at competitive prices ($150 pcm.) I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the competing views I've heard so far are: + It's fair and valid competition in the market, which is encouraging major ISPs to innovate instead of resting on their laurels and trying to do the bare minimum necessary to maintain their position and profits, an attitude that is stifling other economic growth? - Local government is sticking its nose in where it shouldn't, providing unfair competition and stifling normal market processes. Municipalities are operating on the false belief that large bandwidth will automatically bring silicon valley to them, without understanding the bigger picture. That it's time, money and resources better spent on tax incentives or other means of encouraging businesses. Paul
Paul, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-...
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks, but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website' (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) (snip) I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the competing views I've heard so far are: (snip)
With experience from Sweden, which has seen many varying incantations of these sort of networks, I have this hopefully useful bit to share: It's OK for tax-payer money to build layer-1 infrastructure if it decides so, that non-tax payer money can sell services on, but fail starts to happen the very moment they decide to go higher than that. That's... all. Regards, Martin
Highly agree with this experience being shared. We have had some dealings with municipal related fiber networks (not naming any names or giving any hints for obvious reasons) where shortly after providing the proposal to the customer, the municipal "sales vultures" went in and undercut our pricing (with Internet access included) to below what the fiber loop itself was priced at to us. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Martin Millnert [mailto:millnert@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:05 PM To: Paul Graydon Cc: nanog@nanog.org list Subject: Re: The growth of municipal broadband networks Paul, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their- own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal
networks,
but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website' (http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap) (snip) I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the competing views I've heard so far are: (snip)
With experience from Sweden, which has seen many varying incantations of these sort of networks, I have this hopefully useful bit to share: It's OK for tax-payer money to build layer-1 infrastructure if it decides so, that non-tax payer money can sell services on, but fail starts to happen the very moment they decide to go higher than that. That's... all. Regards, Martin
In a message written on Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:31:21AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the competing views I've heard so far are:
If you look at the services going into most homes, what you find are monopolies. Some are government run, some are regulated monopolies, and there are now lots of hybrid models. The funamental issue is that it is not cost effective to anyone (governments, corporations, or citizens) to build multiple gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone or television distribution systems to every home. Remember that when these services were invisioned and first deployed telephone and television did not compete. It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite. To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC). Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should the government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned? There's a lot of space inside these questions for different models, and I think there are at least a half dozen in play in different communities. Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. On that device they can create a layer 2 VLAN/VPN/Tunnel from any of the copper ports to any provider in the town CO. You could buy video from one, voice from one, and internet from another, on three different ports. You could buy everything from one provider. The actual deployments are a bit more complex, but I actually think if in new construction we could drop telephone and coax in the neighborhoods, and deploy fiber to the home it would be cheaper to construct, cheaper to operate in the long term, and would end up giving consumers a lot more choice. It is for all those reasons I expect any established business to be firmly against it. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. On that device they can create a layer 2 VLAN/VPN/Tunnel from any of the copper ports to any provider in the town CO. You could buy video from one, voice from one, and internet from another, on three different ports. You could buy everything from one provider.
+5 Cheers, -- jra
Jay, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. +5
I've seen several cases of these types of networks rolling out the MPLS cloud, oversubscribing ad infinitum, with lots of active network equipment, which all in all in the end doesn't add *anything* more to the end-user than hundredths or thousandths or even less of their end-to-end link capacity, between them and the service-offering ISPs. I'm very wary of doing more L2 than essentially required, and believe it is much more sane to invest a bit extra in the L1, and skip investments at this level in L2 entirely. Handing of L1 to providers works perfectly fine, and adds no over-subscription. The only issue with what I describe above is that it complicates the multiple-vendors-over-the-same-pipe a little bit. Voice and video works pretty fine over IP, though, last I checked. With a few new L1 network devices, the above should become even more feasible. Convincing people they can build a network infrastructure without switches is nearly fated for complete doom, though... (Perhaps giving them some LED panels with high-power fans will satisfy their need for blinkenlights?) Regards, Martin
On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. On that device they can create a layer 2 VLAN/VPN/Tunnel from any of the copper ports to any provider in the town CO. You could buy video from one, voice from one, and internet from another, on three different ports. You could buy everything from one provider.
+5
Cheers, -- jra
+more Owen
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. On that device they can create a layer 2 VLAN/VPN/Tunnel from any of the copper ports to any provider in the town CO. You could buy video from one, voice from one, and internet from another, on three different ports. You could buy everything from one provider.
And the natural question is - how will this differ from the way the "government" services like water, power and transportation have been run, privatised-but-not-quite, etc? Adrian
On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. On that device they can create a layer 2 VLAN/VPN/Tunnel from any of the copper ports to any provider in the town CO. You could buy video from one, voice from one, and internet from another, on three different ports. You could buy everything from one provider.
And the natural question is - how will this differ from the way the "government" services like water, power and transportation have been run, privatised-but-not-quite, etc?
Adrian
Water and Electricity are held to relatively strict standards and basically regardless of the source in the US, water is pretty much water and electricity is 110v/single phase or 220v/2 hots + neutral 60hz. (yes I'm aware of the variety of other 60Hz industrial power configurations, but, we're talking residential here). OTOH, the services offered by various L2 and L3 providers for internet connectivity vary widely in a number of significant ways. I personally would like to see LMIs (Last Mile Infrastructures) owned by the smallest applicable government entity (utility district, municipality, or county, for example) and administered either by said government entity or under contract to that entity on a cost- recovery basis where any service provider can connect to any customer and the per-customer cost of each type of connection (UTP, Co-Ax, or SMF) would be uniform to all providers making such connections. This would be a serious game-changer in the residential market because it would mean: 1. No more service provider monopolies anywhere. It would no longer be cost-prohibitive for any given provider to reach subscribers in remote areas and it would eliminate the need for monopoly/duopoly situations by having the LMI costs for a single LMI shared across all providers. 2. All providers get relatively equal footing for access to all customers. 3. The presence of real and meaningful competition would put the consumer much more in the driver's seat for the features and services that they want. As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services. I believe Australia is starting to do something like this. So far, what I'm hearing is that consumers are loving it and Telstra is pouting. Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some. Cheers, -- jra
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some.
Cheers, -- jra
Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind doing the right thing. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some.
Cheers, -- jra
Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind doing the right thing.
Owen
I've been a geek since I was a kid, and I'm now in my mid thirties. I had worked at an ISP in Central NY for several years until my wife and I decided to move south, to warmer weather. We ended up in South Carolina where I found a job as the Senior Network Engineer for a small datacenter company. Muni networks have always been an interest of mine. Imagine my surprise a few years ago, when the switch from analog to digital television would open spectrum for wireless broadband use like WiMax. Imagine my further surprise to learn SC's education system owned all of the spectrum in the state! An awesome, state-wide muni network was sure to spring from this. You can find info for it here (http://scetv.org/about/distribution.cfm) and here (http://ebscommission.sc.gov/). The kicker is, they have until May of this year to show progress on a viable plan or else they lose the spectrum. This entire project seems to have been dropped to the floor. Notice the broken link on the first page? And no recent updates on the second? I think they fell victim to local cable and telco incumbants... It's really discouraging. -- Fred
It seemes like it died on the vine: http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064017974&ShowArticle_ID=11011108100414529 -- Fred
On 27/03/2011, at 6:35 PM, "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii@shaka.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services. As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some. Cheers, -- jra Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind doing the right thing. Owen
While I agree that laws can and should be changed and I agree that the USA's telco privatization scheme no longer fits the pace of technology, those who believe have a long way toward momentum. Those of us who believe in a muni or a national broadband infrastructure are opposed by a mountain of money (to be made) and an army of lawyers. For instance, when this army couldn't hope to have muni networking outlawed on a national basis they turned to each state legislature. They're ticking off the states one by one: http://www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/muni.htm jy
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services. As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some. Cheers, -- jra Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind doing the right thing. Owen
Yes, that's the reality we're faced with... The question is how do we overcome it and resolve the situation in the public interest. We can either work to resolve the problem, or, accept it as fait acompli and wear the yoke of corporate slavery for the rest of our lives. I, personally, prefer to look for alternatives. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort monopolistic pricing from substandard services. As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have apparently succeeded in lobbying to have it made *illegal* in several states. I don't have citations to hand, but there are a couple sites that track muni fiber; I can find some. Cheers, -- jra Laws can be changed if we can get enough momentum behind doing the right thing. Owen
Yes, that's the reality we're faced with... The question is how do we overcome it and resolve the situation in the public interest. We can either work to resolve the problem, or, accept it as fait acompli and wear the yoke of corporate slavery for the rest of our lives. I, personally, prefer to look for alternatives.
Owen
Yeah, well, I have an "Anonymous" t-shirt, but clearly I'm in the minority. Maybe a 'turncoat' member of the Plutocracy, with multi-millions of $ laying around, can be persuaded to mount a Presidential campaign and try the "Change We Can Believe In" schtick again?...naaa. Your turn. --Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii@shaka.com>
Maybe a 'turncoat' member of the Plutocracy, with multi-millions of $ laying around, can be persuaded to mount a Presidential campaign and try the "Change We Can Believe In" schtick again?...naaa.
Well, not a presidential campaign... but my opinion is that this is what Google Fiber is all about... Cheers, -- jra
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite.
In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility.
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should
Yup, bring back "The Bell System". the
government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned?
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services.
I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop.
For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement.
Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll. Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network.
aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch) What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the Columbia Big media event back in Nov <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing the precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone business back in the day. j On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite.
In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility.
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
Yup, bring back "The Bell System".
Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should the government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned?
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services.
I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop.
For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement.
Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a functional layering concept, it was a "technology silos" concept under which all communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable from their one and only one application. If you read the Communications Act of 1934, you'll see this idea embodied in the titles of the act, each of which describes both a network and an application, as we understand the terms today. Wu wants to make law out of the OSI model, a very different enterprise than traditional telecom regulation. On 3/25/2011 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch)
What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the Columbia Big media event back in Nov <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing the precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone business back in the day.
j
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser<gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite. In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility.
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC). Yup, bring back "The Bell System".
Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should the government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned? I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop.
For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network.
-- Richard Bennett
I take your point, the separation was of a different order. But a separation, nonetheless. The motive is not so much different. I think we can all accept that "traditional telephone regulation" is rapidly losing its grip as the beast morphs. Now that applications outnumber networks new problems require new solutions. I've heard Allied Fiber's Hunter Newby argue convincingly that really it's about separating Level 0 - the real estate, the wires and the head end premises - from everything else, and facilitating sufficient open access to guarantee healthy competition in services. And yes, where there's a monopoly there will have to some price regulation. At least that's traditional. As we've seen in the UK, while it's not so much a stretch to impose even higher level unbundling on the telcos, when it comes to the cable industry it's going to be a very painful pulling of teeth. http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46077&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 j On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>wrote:
The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a functional layering concept, it was a "technology silos" concept under which all communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable from their one and only one application. If you read the Communications Act of 1934, you'll see this idea embodied in the titles of the act, each of which describes both a network and an application, as we understand the terms today. Wu wants to make law out of the OSI model, a very different enterprise than traditional telecom regulation.
On 3/25/2011 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch)
What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the Columbia Big media event back in Nov <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing the precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone business back in the day.
j
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser<gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay
Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite.
In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility.
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the
home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an
area
(think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
Yup, bring back "The Bell System".
Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should
the
government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned?
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services.
I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop.
For simplicity of
argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement.
Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network.
-- Richard Bennett
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
I think the motive for the traditional separation actually was completely different from the one for new separation. Silos had the effect of limiting competition for specific services, while the avowed goal of functional separation mandates is to increase competition. Opportunities for service competition between the telegraph and telephone networks were limited by technology in the first instance - you couldn't carry phone calls over the telegraph network anyway because it was a low bandwidth, steel wire system with telegraph office - to telegraph office topology - but you could carry telegrams over the phone network, but only if permitted by law. In a sense, ARPANET was telegraph network 2.0, and even used the same terminals initially. Paper tape-to-tape transfers became ftp, the telegram became email, and kids running paper messages around the office became routers switching packets. The layer 0 model has some merit, but has issues. In areas nobody wants to provide ISP services, and there is still a tendency toward market consolidation due to economies of scale in the service space. Facilities-based competition remains the most viable model in most places, as we're seeing in the UK where market structure resembles the US more than most want to admit: Their two biggest ISPs are BT and Virgin, the owners of the wire, and they have less fiber than we have in the US. Creating the conditions for network competition is a hard problem with no easy answers. RB On 3/25/2011 11:48 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: I take your point, the separation was of a different order. But a separation, nonetheless. The motive is not so much different. I think we can all accept that "traditional telephone regulation" is rapidly losing its grip as the beast morphs. Now that applications outnumber networks new problems require new solutions. I've heard Allied Fiber's Hunter Newby argue convincingly that really it's about separating Level 0 - the real estate, the wires and the head end premises - from everything else, and facilitating sufficient open access to guarantee healthy competition in services. And yes, where there's a monopoly there will have to some price regulation. At least that's traditional. As we've seen in the UK, while it's not so much a stretch to impose even higher level unbundling on the telcos, when it comes to the cable industry it's going to be a very painful pulling of teeth. [1]http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46077&id=e938181 7-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 j On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Richard Bennett <[2]richard@bennett.com> wrote: The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a functional layering concept, it was a "technology silos" concept under which all communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable from their one and only one application. If you read the Communications Act of 1934, you'll see this idea embodied in the titles of the act, each of which describes both a network and an application, as we understand the terms today. Wu wants to make law out of the OSI model, a very different enterprise than traditional telecom regulation. On 3/25/2011 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch) What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the Columbia Big media event back in Nov <[3]http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing the precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone business back in the day. j On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser<[4]gbonser@seven.com> wrote: It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite. In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility. To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC). Yup, bring back "The Bell System". Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should the government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned? I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus. Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop. For simplicity of argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement. Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll. Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network. -- Richard Bennett -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 [5]Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - [6]http://wwwhatsup.com [7]http://pinstand.com - [8]http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - [9]http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Richard Bennett References 1. http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46077&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 2. mailto:richard@bennett.com 3. http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563 4. mailto:gbonser@seven.com 5. Skype:punkcast 6. http://wwwhatsup.com/ 7. http://pinstand.com/ 8. http://punkcast.com/ 9. http://isoc-ny.org/
Again excellent points. And I agree, in the current UK model there appears very little opportunity for independent ISPs to offer any significantly improved service over the incumbent's own, and thereby grab market share. It's all a matter of what else one can package with it - effectively the separation principle anyway.
Creating the conditions for network competition is a hard problem with no easy answers.
Where there's a will there's a way. The big question, to some extent is, is there the will? One doesn't miss one's water etc. I was cheered to see in the recent Canadian usage pricing fracas, Marc Garneau handing out buttons saying "My Internet Shouldn't Suck"[1], and also to see Susan Crawford urging students to take to the streets over the issue [2] before it's too late. But it's going to take the equivalent of 10 Tahrir Squares to overcome the incumbent clout and establishment inertia. Meanwhile we are seeing widening pre-emptive strikes like N. Carolina. the incumbents ride roughshod over everyone stating words to the effect - if we can't gouge we won't build.. There surely still have to be answers, however tough - and some kind of separation would seem to be an inescapable component. I am no techie, but alternatively I imagine what could be practically discussed is how much new technologies like cheap plastic fiber driving little wi-fi chips, mesh etc, could give those communities that haven't already been legislated out of the game an opportunity to economically and successfully build their own connectivity. [3] j [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/crtc-wont-include-retail-servi... [2] http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1930 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1930> [3] I am in the process of organizing a panel to discuss same at the INET NY on Jun 14, expressions of interest welcome offlist<joly@punkcast.com?subject=INET-NY> . On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>wrote:
I think the motive for the traditional separation actually was completely different from the one for new separation. Silos had the effect of limiting competition for specific services, while the avowed goal of functional separation mandates is to increase competition.
Opportunities for service competition between the telegraph and telephone networks were limited by technology in the first instance - you couldn't carry phone calls over the telegraph network anyway because it was a low bandwidth, steel wire system with telegraph office - to telegraph office topology - but you could carry telegrams over the phone network, but only if permitted by law.
In a sense, ARPANET was telegraph network 2.0, and even used the same terminals initially. Paper tape-to-tape transfers became ftp, the telegram became email, and kids running paper messages around the office became routers switching packets.
The layer 0 model has some merit, but has issues. In areas nobody wants to provide ISP services, and there is still a tendency toward market consolidation due to economies of scale in the service space. Facilities-based competition remains the most viable model in most places, as we're seeing in the UK where market structure resembles the US more than most want to admit: Their two biggest ISPs are BT and Virgin, the owners of the wire, and they have less fiber than we have in the US.
Creating the conditions for network competition is a hard problem with no easy answers.
RB
On 3/25/2011 11:48 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I take your point, the separation was of a different order. But a separation, nonetheless. The motive is not so much different.
I think we can all accept that "traditional telephone regulation" is rapidly losing its grip as the beast morphs. Now that applications outnumber networks new problems require new solutions.
I've heard Allied Fiber's Hunter Newby argue convincingly that really it's about separating Level 0 - the real estate, the wires and the head end premises - from everything else, and facilitating sufficient open access to guarantee healthy competition in services.
And yes, where there's a monopoly there will have to some price regulation. At least that's traditional.
As we've seen in the UK, while it's not so much a stretch to impose even higher level unbundling on the telcos, when it comes to the cable industry it's going to be a very painful pulling of teeth.
http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46077&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10
j
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>wrote:
The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a functional layering concept, it was a "technology silos" concept under which all communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable from their one and only one application. If you read the Communications Act of 1934, you'll see this idea embodied in the titles of the act, each of which describes both a network and an application, as we understand the terms today. Wu wants to make law out of the OSI model, a very different enterprise than traditional telecom regulation.
On 3/25/2011 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch)
What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the Columbia Big media event back in Nov <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing the precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone business back in the day.
j
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser<gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay
Internet on both cable and television, and to have television competition via satellite.
In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing content". They system should have been left as a regulated public utility.
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the
home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an
area
(think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
Yup, bring back "The Bell System".
Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should
the
government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned?
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial entity to come in and offer layer 3 services.
I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make sure there is another entity in the loop.
For simplicity of
argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper switch in your basement.
Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the content, only provide access through the network.
-- Richard Bennett
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-- Richard Bennett
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
It's all a matter of what else one can package with it - effectively the
separation principle anyway.
effectively negating the separation principle anyway. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off?
I appreciate your argument. When asked by Uncle Sam, the major RBOCs were apparently happy to hand over customers' records and tap into their phones in direct violation of the law. *Asked* not ordered by a court or any legally-empowered person or entity. The companies and LEOs then had to fight for RETROACTIVE PROTECTION FROM THEIR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, which was granted by our federal legislature. I think we would be far, far better off, from the perspective of liberty, with a thousand small last-mile providers, some of which will hopefully be owned by cities/counties/states and some of which would hopefully be privately-operated. It's a lot harder to coerce (or just ask) a thousand small access providers to block some "objectionable" or "dangerous" content or activity without getting caught than it is to do the same if there are only a handful of access providers. Since there is no "liberty" advantage, in the real world, to a system where AT&T controls the last-mile or states, counties, or private contractors control same, I would choose the one most likely to create a competitive business environment. We already know that homes without cable television and Internet service are less valuable than homes which have access to these services. I hope that communities would develop and maintain the best last-mile networks they can in order to attract businesses and residents with the most money to spend, and the most to contribute to their tax bases, job market, and skilled labor pool. In an ideal world, I could agree with you. But you don't need a tin-foil hat anymore to be absolutely certain that big brother has over-stepped his bounds and will continue to do so even in an environment where private businesses *could* be an obstacle. Guess what, they aren't. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
We aren't even suggesting that, George. We're suggesting that they *provide access to people who provide network access*; we (most of us, anyway) don't even think the muni's should provide IP routing. They should provide *connectivity* to people who do that. And given how STBs work these days, those wholesale customers could even be cablecos, in addition to telcos, or IAPs. Cheers, -- jra
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an area (think telephone, at least pre CLEC).
+1. The layout of the old copper telephone layout is basically sound, you aggregate thousands of households via X length of cable into a single place, then you let anyone who wants to, rent space/power in there to put in their equipment and rent this fiber to the end user household/enterprise. Do this with fiber to the home, and also provide rentable long haul fiber (to the next town etc) and rent out this infrastructure at decent pricepoint, you have a situation with a very low entry-cost for new players which is great for competition and in the long run, for the end customer. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Graydon" <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of the competing views I've heard so far are:
Oh, look. A hobby horse. My opinion is a third: that last-mile fiber is, for several reasons, a Natural Monopoly, and having municipalities operate it, and farm their residents out as customers to any comer to the meet-me room, is the natural end-game ... and the sooner we get to it, the better. The problem is that many states have made it *illegal* for muni's to do this, encouraged, unsurprisingly, in many cases, by Verizon (who desperately needs FiOS to fly, because they've cut-to-clear in their copper plant for so many *decades* now that it's unsalvageable). Check the archives; I think I brought this up myself about 6 months ago. Cheers, -- jra
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-...
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks, but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website' ( http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap)
The whole scenario around municipal broadband networks in a hopefully unbiased nutshell: Increasing numbers cities and counties seem to be getting frustrated with what they see as the lack of progress in broadband speeds from their incumbent provider(s) (even after incumbent provider(s) have been approached requesting faster speeds) and are deciding to do it themselves.
Whilst that's certainly true for some areas, it's definitely not the case for all of the areas marked on that map. The only entry for the SF Bay area is San Bruno, where the municipal-owned cable provider *is* the incumbent, and has been for the past 30 years. Not only are they the incumbent, but they are also a monopoly who have blocked competition, resulting in higher prices than in much of the rest of the bay area. Scott (Happily no longer living in San Bruno)
participants (16)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Fred Richards -
George Bonser -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeff Wheeler -
Jeffrey S. Young -
Joly MacFie -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Millnert -
Michael Painter -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Graydon -
Paul Stewart -
Richard Bennett -
Scott Howard