I love this idea!
John Boynton
our citizens, our service providers don't treat us particularly well.
Slow roll out of digital cable, no FIOS... Would be great to be a
Google test site. Thanks for organizing!
PFMo...@aol.com
David Allen
The evidence, pretty clearly, says wireline local access (ie, a fiber
local loop) is - to use economists' terms - a natural monopoly.
That means we cannot count on competition, when it comes to this
infrastructure. Europe, and now parts of the rest of the world, have
finally woken up to this reality (after some pointed it out twenty
years ago ...) As a result, some of those societies are in the midst
of establishing what is sometimes called 'loopco.' By that is meant
the recognition that there will - in the end - be only one provider of
this infrastructure. So provision for the fiber local loop is
arranged, variously, in a single 'loop company' - but broadband
carriage, over the local fiber, is open and available to all comers.
In other words, the local fiber is a community resource, necessary to
be shared. On the other hand, all service providers who might like to
utilize the fiber have access, to make their offering on a non-
discriminatory basis. Competition can be vibrant at the service
offering level. (For those interested, France demonstrated this when
it took a strong hand in enforcement of Local Loop Unbundling - in
contrast with the US where incumbent telcos where allowed to flaunt
those rules so they could run out of business the service competitors
who did show up. Translation from the policy gobbledy gook: It has
been proven to work, when done with integrity.)
Yes, in the US for historical reasons the telco and cableco behemoths
are battling out who will be the 'last one standing,' when the fiber
settles. And with the US historical propensity to sustain duopoly
arrangements of this character (ask offlist, please), resolution could
take easily twenty years or more. In the meantime, those who could
make good with the benefits - users and developers who might bring
exciting experimentation, then later real breakthroughs - continue to
live in the shadow, with globally substandard broadband.
For Concord, it was the late Bob Kelner who proposed, to me, that we
adopt the open infrastructure model, available to all interested
service provider competitors. That was about fifteen years ago, when
we were just beginning to consider these matters in the then-Cable TV
committee. From that time forward, this open access model is the
policy I have steadfastly proposed for Concord's FTTH. Google, of
course, proposes to do exactly the same, with their install.
David Allen
Jim Reynolds
I do not know the details of Google's offering, but I agree with you that a monopoly implementation of the infrastructure -- preferably by a local organization like CMLP -- which is then sold at wholesale rates to competing third parties for retail service offerings is the most attractive model.
Jim Reynolds
CEO
Caring Companion Connections
978-254-1347
http://www.CaringCompanion.Net
Elder care, Alzheimers care, Home Companions
Daily reports and photos on your private web portal
David Allen
is Google's program here.
I encourage taking a look at their own intro
http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi
They present it economically - in a brief moment you will have the
story. And if you then spend a moment to look at the information they
seek in a 'government's response,' it will be clear what facets they
are considering.
David
On Feb 27, 6:14 pm, Jim Reynolds <jim.reyno...@caringcompanion.net>
wrote:
> David,
>
> I do not know the details of Google's offering, but I agree with you that a
> monopoly implementation of the infrastructure -- preferably by a local
> organization like CMLP -- which is then sold at wholesale rates to competing
> third parties for retail service offerings is the most attractive model.
>
> Jim Reynolds
> CEO
> Caring Companion Connections
> 978-254-1347http://www.CaringCompanion.Net
> Elder care, Alzheimers care, Home Companions
> Daily reports and photos on your private web portal
>
Hugh C. Lauer
century ago. At that time, railroads were charging discriminatory rates
while at the same time giving themselves preferential treatment on freight
that they owned (or had an interest in).
The eventual response was to establish the concept of common carrier, that
any railroad had to charge everyone the same rate and could not ship freight
that it owned. The concept was extended, mostly, to telephone and telegraph
companies and prevailed for most of the twentieth century. But it was
gradually whittled away, especially as cable TV came into existence, in the
past few decades, until we have the situation today, with cable companies
owning both the cable and the content. A similar situation applies to mobile
phones.
My own view is that a Concord-based network has to be a common carrier open
to all, separate from the content. This seems to be what Google is trying
for. It seems to be counter to what Comcast and Verizon are looking for to
sustain their monopolies.
Regards,
Hugh
Genie
As chair of the Cable Advisory Committee I have been in continual
contact with the FIOS rep. for this area. At this juncture, he has
informed me that Verizon will not be wiring any new towns for 2010 and
will be concentrating on increasing their market share in communities
where it is already installed.
On Feb 27, 3:20�pm, PFMoul...@aol.com wrote:
swahssw
make money and provide service to the whole town - so they won't come
here. Check with Littleton on their experience with Verizon in that
regard.
Scott Anderson
On Feb 27, 3:20 pm, PFMoul...@aol.com wrote:
PFMo...@aol.com
Peter:
As chair of the Cable Advisory Committee I have been in continual
contact with the FIOS rep. for this area. At this juncture, he has
informed me that Verizon will not be wiring any new towns for 2010 and
will be concentrating on increasing their market share in communities
where it is already installed.
PFMo...@aol.com
The problem really is the number of houses per mile - Verizon can't
make money and provide service to the whole town - so they won't come
here. Check with Littleton on their experience with Verizon in that
regard.
Scott Anderson
Ru Terajewicz
being in the only town in the area not having FIOS. Apparently it too
costly to replace all the lines and town of Concord wouldn't share the cost
with Verizon as other towns did with Verizon.
---
Ru Terajewicz
-----Original Message-----
From: conco...@googlegroups.com [mailto:conco...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of swahssw
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:28 PM
To: ConcordGig
Subject: Re: I love this idea!
Chucko
Topeka's got game for the this... Seems like a "Revolutionary" pitch
would be appropriate.
Would Concord endorse actively pursuing Google?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/02/google.kansas.topeka/index.html
David Allen
appear to be our choices, in regards various providers.
If local fiber is a natural monopoly, as evidence suggests and as
societies around the world are increasingly agreeing. And, if we want
Google as our fiber collaborator / provider. We get to make a choice,
since there will be just one provider in the end. Do we prefer
Verizon? Or, do we want to invite Google into our town?
The US way has been a ‘holy grail’ of ‘competition,’ this being the
principal US ‘export’ such as in the WTO Telecom Accords over a decade
back. If we can get beyond the shibboleths and ideology, we may see
the practical choice is to employ competition where we can and ask
‘competition – at what level?’ If not available at a monopoly
infrastructure level, then let’s have it at the service level.
Which has been the town (informal) position for some time – the
tradition, as Hugh tells us, of ‘common carriage’ is an excellent way
to put it. In today’s terms, ‘open access,’ as Google offers.
David Allen
On Mar 7, 7:07 pm, PFMoul...@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks, hope they change their minds at some point.
>
> Peter
>
> In a message dated 3/7/2010 5:27:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>