Lake Oswego is taking the right tact here by considering a public-private partnership, but the should structure it in such a way where other service providers, even Google, can access the network to sell competitive services. By doing this they reduce the risk by spreading the infrastructure costs over more service providers. After a while even the incumbent providers will take advantage of the infrastructure. The private partner would build, operate, and maintain the fiber network so they would be adequately compensated for their efforts.
Drew Clark, Publisher, BroadbandBreakfast.com
LAKE OSWEGO, Oregon, October 14, 2015 – This suburb of Portland, a potential candidate for Google Fiber’s Gigabit-speed internet service, has said it isn’t willing to wait around for the search engine giant. Continue reading
Cities frustrated with high prices and slow internet speed fight to build their own blazing fast fiber-optic networks.
This very detailed article is one of many examples that demonstrates competition benefits the consumers in price, choice, and customer service. No one argues that broadband services improve the lives and vitalities of those that it touches or that the incumbents are slow to improve and expand their services without competition. What is at question is whether a government owned service provider has any unfair advantages over private service providers? Does FiberNET benefit from their utility parent owning poles and right-of-ways? Do these advantages prevent other players from possibly competing against FiberNET? Should FiberNET’s facilities be open to all potential carriers?
There is no doubt that Morristown FiberNET is well run and delivering a quality product. They have over a 100 year history to build providing other utilities. I believe that the MUS should open up their fiber network to other potential service providers including the incumbents to spur even more competition that will benefit the city and its residents. Continue reading
Last-mile access is about to become a bit more expensive for businesses and wireless carriers. The real solution here is not more regulation, but competition. Allow cities and service providers to build their own infrastructure. Frankly I agree with Frank Simone’s question asking why service providers are not building more fiber access to customers. The answer is simple. It is cost prohibitive in most cases. A carrier could spend more than $10,000 pulling a fiber pair to a building. They have two options, charge an up-front fee or try to amortize it over a few years. Most customers will stick with an incumbent carrier rather than pay an up-front fee, and if the carrier amortizes the costs they have no guarantee that the customer will stick with them long enough to make laying the fiber profitable.
I have asked several Tier 2 service providers whether they support municipal broadband networks and they typically state that telecommunications is not a governmental function. I agree with them, but there is an important difference here. First of all the government is just leasing last-mile access to the service provider in my model. They are not actually selling services to customers. Second I only see these carriers pulling fiber to only the most profitable buildings because of the dilemma I mentioned above. What about the small independent insurance agent or rural physician that has broadband needs as well? A few years ago, I worked for a public company with 125 people in a facility and no carrier would bring fiber to our building without a $35,000 initial payment even though fiber ran right down the street we were located. Perhaps letting the price-cap expire will initiate the deployment of more fiber.
WASHINGTON, June 30, 2010 – AT&T’s special access lines are set for price hikes, and the NoChokePoints Coalition says FCC regulation of this “is essential to the health of our information economy.”
The coalition held a teleconference panel discussion Tuesday to call on the FCC to take action and regulate what it says is a rapidly developing monopoly.