Community Owned Fiber
Michael Weinberg
In their paper Homes with Tails (PDF), Columbia Law School professor
and NAF Fellow Tim Wu and Google Policy Analyst Derek Slater lay out a
proposal in which a community would establish a collectively-owned
fiber trunk cable that would lead to individually-owned lines into
people's homes.
Columbia Law professor Tim Wu explained Friday the benefits of
encouraging privately owned fiber lines.
Such an architecture would be "akin to a condominium complex--also a
radical form of property not too long ago," Slater said.
The fiber would lead an open point of presence (or PoP), at which
different service providers could set up equipment and compete for
residents' business.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10105776-38.html
I've been saying exactly this for months. I would love to actually see
a neighborhood come together to install homeowner purchased fiber with
a community trunk, anyone interested?
--
Michael Weinberg
President
Personal Telco Project, Inc.
A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit
Tyler Booth
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205
Daniel Johnson
> I think this this is a great initiative and could be the next "Mississippi
> project" (in a different neighborhood of course). Why don't we allocate a
> weekly meeting to planning what this might look like and maybe form a
> "committee" of sorts to see if we can give this thing some "legs". All of
> this of course depends on wether or not MIke and I are the only ones that
> thing this is a good idea.
I think this is a great idea. Actually I think this is a necessary
idea. When Verizon installs fiber to the home they rip out the old
copper wires. The way the laws are setup you are no longer able to
choose your ISP when that happens. I would really love the high
speeds of fiber, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom from
monopoly to do it.
My feeling is that the cable TV industry is moving towards fiber to
the home too, but I think they may be even more opposed to freedom
than the traditional telcos.
Charles Wyble
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Tyler Booth <ty...@stephouse.net> wrote:
>
>> I think this this is a great initiative and could be the next "Mississippi
>> project" (in a different neighborhood of course). Why don't we allocate a
>> weekly meeting to planning what this might look like and maybe form a
>> "committee" of sorts to see if we can give this thing some "legs". All of
>> this of course depends on wether or not MIke and I are the only ones that
>> thing this is a good idea.
>>
>
> I think this is a great idea.
I concur.
> Actually I think this is a necessary
> idea.
Very much so. Building out a large scale LAN only takes you so far. Some
point you need to back haul it.
Telcos can cut you off at that point if you don't control the local loop.
Once you peer with a tier2 you should be safe(ish).
> When Verizon installs fiber to the home they rip out the old
> copper wires. The way the laws are setup you are no longer able to
> choose your ISP when that happens. I would really love the high
> speeds of fiber, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom from
> monopoly to do it.
>
Indeed.
> My feeling is that the cable TV industry is moving towards fiber to
> the home too, but I think they may be even more opposed to freedom
> than the traditional telcos.
>
Perhaps. They have lots and lots of dark fiber about. Paying them a
token fee for access to HFC might be worth it. I know of a company that
specializes in exactly this.
Russell Senior
From a 5-page letter, dated October 30, from the Portland City Council
to Congressman Blumenauer (at the end of a long list of other
projects), comes this paragraph:
"Broadband Access: Speaker Pelosi, as recently as yesterday,
suggested that funds for broadband should be included in the
stimulus package. We agree. Ubiquitous, affordable, high-speed
broadband infrastructure is absolutely essential to Portland's
economic growth and job creation. Fiber broadband infrastructure
encourages cost-effective advances in health care, education, public
safety, environmental protection, sustainability, independent living,
and other government services. Any broadband funding included in
the stimulus bill needs to be directed to local governments. Both
of the City's incumbent cable and telephone providers have declined
to offer any plans to deploy fiber broadband in Portland. The only
foreseeable way that Portland will get the fiber broadband
infrastructure it needs will be for the City to either build the
infrastructure itself or leverage public and private dollars in a
public/private partnership. Stimulus funds directed to local
governments for broadband deployment can make that happen."
--
Russell Senior, Secretary
rus...@personaltelco.net
Russell Senior
Russell> From a 5-page letter, dated October 30, from the Portland
Russell> City Council to Congressman Blumenauer (at the end of a long
Russell> list of other projects), comes this paragraph:
Russell> "Broadband Access: Speaker Pelosi, as recently as [...]
The complete letter can be found here:
http://www.personaltelco.net/~russell/CouncilStimulusLetter-Blumenauer.pdf
Conor Todd
You'd have to have a monthly open class on how to properly configure Bittorrent clients, though... ;)
- Conor
"(Information) consumes the attention of its recipients, hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."
-- Herbert Simon
Tyler Booth
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205
Tyler Booth
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205
Michael
Tyler Booth wrote:
> Another follow up on that with regards to the cost comment. Yes, it's
> true that the investment can be costly. Depending on the number of
> subscribers and overall coverage of the network, you can expect
> anywhere between $2k-$5k and upwards. The idea however is that it
> gives you premium access to very cheap bandwidth and the investment is
> paid back over time. In addition, it's a great home improvement
> amenity which increases the value of your home.
What about a worst case scenario? I don't think there's anyone in my
neighborhood (39th and Holgate) that would be interested. What would it cost
for me to get a run to myself? How would I be able to get cheap bandwidth as
a result?
Substitute "any individual" for I in the previous paragraph.
--
Michael Rasmussen
http://www.jamhome.us/
Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
Tyler Booth
I don't think you give your neighbors enough credit. Home owners are
willing to drop 3k on a
new fireplace, deck, cabinets, etc. Why not a "tail" to the nearest
fiber distribution point? It could be covered
under your mortgage just like any other home improvement.
Adding $2,000 at 6% interest on a typical 30 year note amounts to
$11.99/month. As with any home improvement
it means that the person buying the house gets that amenity along with
it, adding financial value to the house.
All it takes is a little education.
As for affordable bandwidth. Look at any carrier hotel vs. the cost of
bandwidth in a carrier owned colocation facility.
You will find that as with anything else, competition drives cost
down. Because you own the most expensive part of the
infrastructure, you're bearing most of the cost that would typically
be attributed to the last mile.
It's conceivable that you could easily have 50-100Mbit from just about
any provider that peered with the network. I'm not
quoting firm figures here, but I would estimate that a low-ball 20Mbit
circuit could cost as little as $10/month depending on
what costs the peering organization charged the provider to participate.
Russell Senior
Michael> What about a worst case scenario? I don't think there's
Michael> anyone in my neighborhood (39th and Holgate) that would be
Michael> interested. What would it cost for me to get a run to
Michael> myself? How would I be able to get cheap bandwidth as a
Michael> result?
I think as long as we are stuck in the telco-as-monopoly-resource-
extractor model, it's going to remain expensive. Both of the
incumbent carriers have business interests in bandwidth remaining
scarse and expensive. Having bandwidth allows the consumer to route
around the incumbents' lucrative television or voice business models,
so as long as you are reliant on them, you'll continue to have bad
choices.
You need to route around the incumbent-carrier last-mile damage by
either having public ownership of the infrastructure (like we do for
streets), or by having the residence own the infrastructure between
their house to a colocation point where they have a wide range of
options for services. Either that, or the incumbent carriers need a
substantial attitude readjustment, which seems a less likely prospect.
Michael Weinberg
<rus...@personaltelco.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael <mic...@jamhome.us> writes:
>
> Michael> What about a worst case scenario? I don't think there's
> Michael> anyone in my neighborhood (39th and Holgate) that would be
> Michael> interested. What would it cost for me to get a run to
> Michael> myself? How would I be able to get cheap bandwidth as a
> Michael> result?
>
> I think as long as we are stuck in the telco-as-monopoly-resource-
> extractor model, it's going to remain expensive. Both of the
> incumbent carriers have business interests in bandwidth remaining
> scarse and expensive. Having bandwidth allows the consumer to route
> around the incumbents' lucrative television or voice business models,
> so as long as you are reliant on them, you'll continue to have bad
> choices.
To clarify Russell's point:
The telcos have a monopoly (or the cable/telcos have a duopoly) on the
carriage of your bandwidth. That infrastructure, is not, in of itself,
lucrative for them. In fact, my sense is that they mostly feel it is a
miserable asset that they are forced to maintain in order to continue
to charge customers for bandwidth and content. Consider how
recalcitrant they often are to send a tech out to repair things.
Building a community fiber network will always be costly, but I would
argue that it is not expensive. The benefits, both tangible (access to
$10-20 bandwidth, from your choice of providers) and intangible
(access to traditional content over a new medium and access to new
content that does not fit the old model) are enormous and outweigh the
expense withing a couple years. The main barrier, as I see it, is lack
of curiosity and inertia. Convincing your neighbors it is time to take
the plunge is a matter of illustrating what the future could (should)
look like.
Charles Wyble
>
> To clarify Russell's point:
>
> The telcos have a monopoly (or the cable/telcos have a duopoly) on the
> carriage of your bandwidth. That infrastructure, is not, in of itself,
> lucrative for them. In fact, my sense is that they mostly feel it is a
> miserable asset that they are forced to maintain in order to continue
> to charge customers for bandwidth and content. Consider how
> recalcitrant they often are to send a tech out to repair things.
>
Yep. I agree with this.
Building out an alternative local loop / last mile infrastructure is
sorely needed. Whether that takes the form of high capacity, low latency
wireless links (perhaps some 60ghz stuff or 802.11y) or some wired
technology (perhaps a combination of fiber and copper ala Uverse but via
a CLEC).
> Building a community fiber network will always be costly, but I would
> argue that it is not expensive.
I think that's a huge amount of "it depends". :) Certainly with aerial
right of way costs are vastly reduced. However fighting a rate regulated
utility for rights of way... well funding the lawyers for that will take
substantial capital.
> The benefits, both tangible (access to
> $10-20 bandwidth, from your choice of providers) and intangible
> (access to traditional content over a new medium and access to new
> content that does not fit the old model) are enormous and outweigh the
> expense withing a couple years. The main barrier, as I see it, is lack
> of curiosity and inertia. Convincing your neighbors it is time to take
> the plunge is a matter of illustrating what the future could (should)
> look like.
>
So.... outside of the tech savy community that hangs out on open source
mailing lists and slashdot .... how many people care about the
monopoly/duopoly?
I would say it's people that don't have any access to broadband right
now (large portions of rural america for example).
If people have access to FiOS/uverse or whatever the cable offerings are
why do they care about alternatives?
I realize why we care and why the issue is important. I don't argue that
for a second. I just want to know how we can better evangelize and
engage those outside the traditional tech circles. Give me those
talking points, and I'll raise the capital and get the resources. I
would have already if I had those talking points.
Gary
help from locals agreeing to a food a services sales tax plus a small
property tax to help cover expenses. It quickly spun out of financial
manageability but I haven't read up on it in a couple of years to hear
whether they saved it or not. Anyone here in the know?
ashlandfiber.net still has a website...
-Gary
Michael Weinberg
I went down to meet with the Ashland folks. They are indeed alive and
well. They approached things differently than what we're talking
about here, with the city essentially building a cable network (using
fiber for the backhaul). They have not leveraged the assets of local
data centers and ISPs who have bandwidth of their own (likely because
neither exists in a substantial fashion in Ashland) so they
essentially provide the entire service, even though individual ISPs
sell the service and provide billing, first-tier tech support and
add-ons such as email for their customers.
The model we've been discussing would have only the infrastructure
publicly or community owned, with local (or national) ISPs providing
all the bandwidth, customer service and other services to their
customers. There is no reason, in Portland, to create COs or new data
centers to terminate the fiber, as we have substantial choice in
carrier neutral facilities where ISPs could service customers with a
simple cross connect. You would of course, need some body that oversaw
the maintenance of the infrastructure and handled cross connects with
the ISPs, but otherwise, once your fiber was installed, you'd work
directly with whatever service provider(s) you chose.
Sam Churchill
but money short.
(www.dailywireless.org/2008/11/25/utopia-ftth-now-focused-on-business)
(http://telephonyonline.com/fttp/news/multi-city-utopia-network-1125/)
When the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA)
was launched in 2003, it planned to boost the broadband
competitiveness of Utah cities, although the largest city, Salt Lake,
did not participate. UTOPIA only supplies the fiber optic network.
Private companies would provide the content and services, and pay fees
to the network to make their products available.
"For a lot of different reasons, they didn't get the last mile in in
lots of places before they needed to refinance", said Hugh Matheson,
Utopia's new communications director. "There's fiber that goes into
some footprints but doesn't go down streets. There are places where
there's fiber under the streets that hasn't been marketed. They were
kind of going maybe too many places at once."
Utah's other well-known muni network, iProvo, was acquired and
privatized this year by Broadweave Networks. The acquisition makes
Broadweave one of the largest Fiber-To-The-Home (FTTH) network
operators in the country. iProvo passes 36,000 homes, businesses,
government buildings, and schools at speeds up to 1,000 times faster
than cable or DSL.
Provo spent $47.5 million total, they sold for $40.5 million, so in
the end the city's out about $7 million. iProvo was the largest
municipally owned fiber-optic network in the United States.