4 ms·

Would it make sense for the municipality to own the pipes that run in the city ? Like some cities own the sewer pipes. Could it be an infrastructure that the c

by llsf 3y ago

Would it make sense for the municipality to own the pipes that run in the city ? Like some cities own the sewer pipes. Could it be an infrastructure that the city builds, owns, maintains and rents to ISP ? The city would have a full control on how many houses are connected. That is the type of investments that a city is suited for (i.e. large upfront cost financed by bonds). AT&T, Charter, Comcast, they have no incentive to invest a lot upfront. And they might duplicate the infrastructure. At the end the customer pays for the piecemeal fiber deployment, and redundancy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jpk 3y ago
Part of me likes this approach, but another part of me is hesitant putting the local government in control of all of the network infrastructure. It could conceivably allow local officials to turn it all off during a protest or something; similar to what we saw during the Arab Spring events.
- xenospn 3y ago
  They can already do that with ease by instructing the companies that own it to shut it down. I’d argue that having local officials in charge offers more transparency than a nameless corporation.
  - gooseyman 3y ago
    Cleveland has a public owned utility for power that does publish an annual. https://www.cpp.org/About/Annual-Reports https://www.cpp.org/About/Annual-Reports The non-Cleveland owned utility data is also available, it’s just not as “Cleveland specific”
  - jpk 3y ago
    Sure, but the company has an incentive to resist such an order. So there's a check there. I guess all I'm saying is there should be a check, and transparency about when that check is tested.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  I mean where the ISP that was shutdown during the Arab spring state owned? Also having one municipal network doesn't prevent others from building their own infrastructure.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
That's what they do here in Utah: UTOPIA (the municipality) runs its own fiber lines, and leases its network to private ISPs. That way, there is a single physical network with competitive pricing. Of course, that doesn't stop Comcast, Centurylink, Google Fiber, etc. from running their own networks, and UTOPIA's coverage generally doesn't overlap where these other ISPs already have infrastructure.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
In my part of the globe the city is in the process of finishing installing fiber ducts to all addresses in the city (currently around 3.5M people) and ISPs run microfiber to any residential area, event apartment buildings. The effect is that you can get service from whatever provider you want without the hassle of "we don't have the infrastructure to do it". ISPs rent the fibers on a per distance price, but it is pretty much negligible. When I say installing fiber ducts, I mean trenches with ducts that have exits on every address. And the microfibers are blown through those and you have a fiber optic cable to your door.
oooyay 3y ago
Being NAASCO certified and having seen a lot of sewer pipe that's owned by a city, that's probably a terrible idea. Cities are also partially responsible for the bribing scheme required to open a Telco in a town. There are already backbone providers, having communities band together as last mile providers would likely be far more optimal. It may seem like a minor distinction, but to me theres a big gap between "co-op" and "city owned".
pottertheotter 3y ago
It's what happens in a lot of places with open access networks. And it's what we do with a lot of infrastructure, such a streets.
p1mrx 3y ago
Ideally the municipality should provide a "dumb pipe" to a point of presence, where the customer chooses an ISP. That way the municipality doesn't have to deal with IPv4/IPv6 addressing, or DMCA notices.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  That's what OpenInfra does. They lay the fiber infrastructure and a bunch of ISPs are available to buy service from. They're still trenching around here. Our ONT is installed by the fiber won't be lit until New Years.
  - p1mrx 3y ago
    https://us.openinfra.com/ https://us.openinfra.com/ seems available in various parts of Texas. I wonder if they'll expand to other states? Edit: it looks like there are other "open access fiber" deployments, e.g. Utopia, SiFi, and Gigapower.
gooseyman 3y ago
And Cleveland already has Cleveland Public Power! Cleveland Public Power is the City of Cleveland's municipally-owned electric company and is a Division of the Department of Public Utilities. The Department provides water, sewer, and electricity to the residents and businesses in the City of Cleveland. Edit - link https://www.cpp.org/index.php/About https://www.cpp.org/index.php/About
AnotherGoodName 3y ago
As a general rule of thumb utilities is a mode of market failure for capitalism. No one's going to run multiple power/water/communication/sewer lines to your house and compete. At the very least they'll want to share poles/pipes. Anyway the solution is easy and exactly as you suggested. No idea why people find this hard to comprehend.
- eviks 3y ago
  For the broadband topic at hand there are places where exactly this "no one's going to run multiple ... lines" happens and results in lower prices due to the market failure of capitalism

by llsf 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jpk 3y ago

Part of me likes this approach, but another part of me is hesitant putting the local government in control of all of the network infrastructure. It could conceivably allow local officials to turn it all off during a protest or something; similar to what we saw during the Arab Spring events.

xenospn 3y ago
They can already do that with ease by instructing the companies that own it to shut it down. I’d argue that having local officials in charge offers more transparency than a nameless corporation.
- gooseyman 3y ago
  Cleveland has a public owned utility for power that does publish an annual. https://www.cpp.org/About/Annual-Reports https://www.cpp.org/About/Annual-Reports The non-Cleveland owned utility data is also available, it’s just not as “Cleveland specific”
- jpk 3y ago
  Sure, but the company has an incentive to resist such an order. So there's a check there. I guess all I'm saying is there should be a check, and transparency about when that check is tested.
patmorgan23 3y ago
I mean where the ISP that was shutdown during the Arab spring state owned? Also having one municipal network doesn't prevent others from building their own infrastructure.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

That's what they do here in Utah: UTOPIA (the municipality) runs its own fiber lines, and leases its network to private ISPs. That way, there is a single physical network with competitive pricing. Of course, that doesn't stop Comcast, Centurylink, Google Fiber, etc. from running their own networks, and UTOPIA's coverage generally doesn't overlap where these other ISPs already have infrastructure.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

In my part of the globe the city is in the process of finishing installing fiber ducts to all addresses in the city (currently around 3.5M people) and ISPs run microfiber to any residential area, event apartment buildings. The effect is that you can get service from whatever provider you want without the hassle of "we don't have the infrastructure to do it". ISPs rent the fibers on a per distance price, but it is pretty much negligible. When I say installing fiber ducts, I mean trenches with ducts that have exits on every address. And the microfibers are blown through those and you have a fiber optic cable to your door.

oooyay 3y ago

Being NAASCO certified and having seen a lot of sewer pipe that's owned by a city, that's probably a terrible idea. Cities are also partially responsible for the bribing scheme required to open a Telco in a town. There are already backbone providers, having communities band together as last mile providers would likely be far more optimal. It may seem like a minor distinction, but to me theres a big gap between "co-op" and "city owned".

pottertheotter 3y ago

It's what happens in a lot of places with open access networks. And it's what we do with a lot of infrastructure, such a streets.

p1mrx 3y ago

Ideally the municipality should provide a "dumb pipe" to a point of presence, where the customer chooses an ISP. That way the municipality doesn't have to deal with IPv4/IPv6 addressing, or DMCA notices.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
That's what OpenInfra does. They lay the fiber infrastructure and a bunch of ISPs are available to buy service from. They're still trenching around here. Our ONT is installed by the fiber won't be lit until New Years.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  https://us.openinfra.com/ https://us.openinfra.com/ seems available in various parts of Texas. I wonder if they'll expand to other states? Edit: it looks like there are other "open access fiber" deployments, e.g. Utopia, SiFi, and Gigapower.

gooseyman 3y ago

And Cleveland already has Cleveland Public Power! Cleveland Public Power is the City of Cleveland's municipally-owned electric company and is a Division of the Department of Public Utilities. The Department provides water, sewer, and electricity to the residents and businesses in the City of Cleveland. Edit - link https://www.cpp.org/index.php/About https://www.cpp.org/index.php/About

AnotherGoodName 3y ago

As a general rule of thumb utilities is a mode of market failure for capitalism. No one's going to run multiple power/water/communication/sewer lines to your house and compete. At the very least they'll want to share poles/pipes. Anyway the solution is easy and exactly as you suggested. No idea why people find this hard to comprehend.

eviks 3y ago
For the broadband topic at hand there are places where exactly this "no one's going to run multiple ... lines" happens and results in lower prices due to the market failure of capitalism