5 ms·

Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance and I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fibe

Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance and I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fiber optic lines to residences. Maybe governments can build the initial infrastructure which can then be leased out to ISPs who will also be responsible for maintaining it.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance and I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fiber optic lines to residences. There's no need to lease the fiber infrastructure, just provide interconnect nodes for ISPs. Municipal broadband maintenance can be paid for by charging interconnect fees to the ISPs who wish to service that area. Once the infrastructure is in place, barriers to entry for ISPs is very low. All you need is bandwidth and connection to the municipal network. Maintenance can be provided on a cost plus basis by an independent (i.e., not the ISPs) company that manages and maintains the infrastructure. And surpluses from interconnect fees can be used for both network enhancements and other municipal programs.
sitkack 6y ago
Wha wha wha?!!!! So the government should pay for a thing to be created but private enterprise should maintain it? I believe if anything, you flipped this. Because when I think private enterprise, I think maintenance and long term strategy of only profit. They will do nothing and then dump the hot mess back on the people when it breaks down. Last mile infra should be owned, operated and maintained by the people. ISPs should connect to the network and offer services. I should be able to have multiple ISPs and free local network access.
- coryrc 6y ago
  When I think public workers, I think jobs where no one can be fired no matter how bad they are. We even have nationwide protests on this very point...
  - zrail 6y ago
    Public employees working on municipal internet are not going to be carrying weapons or have the idea that literally everyone they encounter is out to kill them drilled in with every training session.
iso1631 6y ago
Do different electric companies run cables to homes in the U.S?
throw0101a 6y ago
> Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance Which is paid for by a levy charged to (Layer 3) ISPs, which is passed onto customers at the end of the fibre.
nobody9999 6y ago
>I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fiber optic lines to residences. Do you feel the same way about sewer lines? Water pipes? How about roads?
- blueblisters 6y ago
  Not really. A better comparison would be electric cable where the company who provides you power is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. It's more practical to do it this way, otherwise every time your lights went out, you would have two parties who would be potentially responsible for fixing it.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Not really. A better comparison would be electric cable where the company who provides you power is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. It's more practical to do it this way, otherwise every time your lights went out, you would have two parties who would be potentially responsible for fixing it. Where I live, the company that delivers the power is responsible for maintaining the delivery infrastructure, while those who provide the power are (or can be) completely separate entities. As such, it seems to me that even your example would argue for municipal broadband.

nobody9999 6y ago

>Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance and I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fiber optic lines to residences. There's no need to lease the fiber infrastructure, just provide interconnect nodes for ISPs. Municipal broadband maintenance can be paid for by charging interconnect fees to the ISPs who wish to service that area. Once the infrastructure is in place, barriers to entry for ISPs is very low. All you need is bandwidth and connection to the municipal network. Maintenance can be provided on a cost plus basis by an independent (i.e., not the ISPs) company that manages and maintains the infrastructure. And surpluses from interconnect fees can be used for both network enhancements and other municipal programs.

sitkack 6y ago

Wha wha wha?!!!! So the government should pay for a thing to be created but private enterprise should maintain it? I believe if anything, you flipped this. Because when I think private enterprise, I think maintenance and long term strategy of only profit. They will do nothing and then dump the hot mess back on the people when it breaks down. Last mile infra should be owned, operated and maintained by the people. ISPs should connect to the network and offer services. I should be able to have multiple ISPs and free local network access.

coryrc 6y ago
When I think public workers, I think jobs where no one can be fired no matter how bad they are. We even have nationwide protests on this very point...
- zrail 6y ago
  Public employees working on municipal internet are not going to be carrying weapons or have the idea that literally everyone they encounter is out to kill them drilled in with every training session.

iso1631 6y ago

Do different electric companies run cables to homes in the U.S?

throw0101a 6y ago

> Municipal broadband is an interesting idea but physical infrastructure inevitably needs maintenance Which is paid for by a levy charged to (Layer 3) ISPs, which is passed onto customers at the end of the fibre.

nobody9999 6y ago

>I'm not sure tax dollars should be used to maintain fiber optic lines to residences. Do you feel the same way about sewer lines? Water pipes? How about roads?

blueblisters 6y ago
Not really. A better comparison would be electric cable where the company who provides you power is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. It's more practical to do it this way, otherwise every time your lights went out, you would have two parties who would be potentially responsible for fixing it.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Not really. A better comparison would be electric cable where the company who provides you power is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. It's more practical to do it this way, otherwise every time your lights went out, you would have two parties who would be potentially responsible for fixing it. Where I live, the company that delivers the power is responsible for maintaining the delivery infrastructure, while those who provide the power are (or can be) completely separate entities. As such, it seems to me that even your example would argue for municipal broadband.