Utah already has something like this called UTOPIA (http://www.utopianet.org/about-utopia/). The participating cities run fiber optic lines. The city pays for the fiber optic lines (lots and lots and lots of political controversy about this!) then subscribers can pick and choose what services and from which providers they want. I'm in a participating city and love it! Unfortunately politics, both the governmental and the organizational types, are constantly threatening the viability of UTOPIA (http://www.utopianet.org/press/).
>UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) is not an Internet service provider. UTOPIA operates on an open access model, which means we own and manage the infrastructure, but lease the lines to private Internet Service Providers, who then deliver services to subscribers. This allows you to choose the provider that best meets your needs.
That sounds like a similar model to Australia's endangered National Broadband Network. The government owned NBNCo lays the fibres to customers' homes, then ISPs lease bandwidth to service their customers.
It seems to be facing the same issues that you describe, with some politicians being unable to stomach publicly owned infrastructure.
God no! That is not how Labor's NBN works, nor how it is priced. Simon Hackett, the founder and former owner of Internode did a very good job of explaining by NBN Co.'s pricing model is retarded and why the network build is dumb [1]. In brief, the wholesale pricing model precludes new ISPs entering the market, and Labor's NBN is not dark fibre to the premises, again see [1], along with Simon's other talks on the subject. Frankly, the less of Labor's NBN that gets built the better.
That linked preso was terribly salesy. He did a poor job of actually backing up some of his graphs with data.
He has a point when he talks about NBNCo's CPE device offering. But that's not really a big deal. Most of his griping seems like nitpicking. Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns. Once that is done all of his other complaints can be dealt with. We can argue incessently over what kind of CPE device to deploy, and change it, without altering the fact that NBNCo now has the fiber in the ground.
He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.
>Frankly, the less of Labor's NBN that gets built the better.
Simon doesn't make that argument. His argument is to do it differently, which is completely different than not do it. In the Q&A he makes suggestions to do some parts of the NBN differently, but it's clear he is generally in favor of it.
The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I think by the time Simon gave that particular presentation he'd been saying the same stuff on a regular basis for a good two years, so it started to sound really rehearsed. Have a look at some of his older videos eg. [1] Although, that is, to a major degree, just how Simon sounds when he talks.
I don't think you fully understand the implications of what NBN Co is building.
> Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns.
This is exactly what is not happening. Labor's NBN Co is (was?) building another Telstra-like monopoly. The one company that owns the fibre is NBN Co. which will, like almost every other government asset, be sold at a loss to a private company. And, like Telstra, it will become notorious for dragging its feet when it comes to appropriately pricing the wholesale service.
> He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.
While you (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'you' in the general sense of the Australian voter) are focus on 'fibre regardless of costs' then yes, sure, you're correct.
> Simon doesn't make that argument.
You're right, he doesn't. That is my argument. And, like I always said from the very first first announcement of the NBN "well that will take Labor winning the next 6 elections".
> The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.
Change. Yes, just like Telstra. In fact, the scenario with Telstra is better than NBN Co. At least Telstra has been forced to resell ULL (Unbundled Local Loop, ie. vacant copper) to ISPs. NBN Co. is being built from the ground up to not be like that.
WHY!
I'll take Dark fibre to the premises, or no fibre thanks.
The creation of NBN Co. even resulted in the enactment of new legislation that prohibits competing fibre network builds. Hell, NBN Co. is taking TPG to court over TPGs pre-existing fibre network! [2] This is decided not the role NBN Co. could be playing.
I've been trying to follow NBN Co since I first heard about it 2-3 years ago, but it's tough not being in AU. Thanks for giving me more to think about, and some more links to read.
It sounds like the NBN that was planned is not the NBN that you guys are getting, and that sucks.
Macquarie Capital isn't little known here. They are famous for being able to extract maximum fees from public infrastructure. If they live up to past form [1,2], they will turn UTOPIA into a river of gold, and the source of that river will be the customers.
I think we can fully expect that NBN Co. will be sold to some organisation or another just like this. That is the sort of thing the Australian government does with public assets.
My work email archive from a decade ago is hard to search, but when I sent a similar email, I got back a reference to a study of broadband in Japan (?) about early adopters in fiber-to-the-curb communities...
They essentially found that when you installed a network like this in a neighborhood, the economic growth in that neighborhood almost immediately changed trajectory (upward) relative to similar communities without these networks.
When I bought my house, one of my absolute requirements was that the house be in a UTOPIA city. If I were a business owner, I would have the same requirement.
Don't let it die that's a pretty significant step forward.
Regarding Lever 3 and all other Tier 1 providers I suggest they build a database of all ISP's that let their connection saturate and if this keeps happening they cut connections and ban their ass.
All ISP's on the ban list should be forced to pay a large fee to be able to connect back with any Tier 1 providers.
At the end of the day regardless of how big you are you're not an ISP if you don't have access to the Internet.
If Concast and friends want to play the who is more important game i would wager Tier 1 providers are in a better position to win it.
I can't help but think that Spotify's much derided torrent style streaming of data between users on their upload channels, would be a pragmatic workaround for netflix and others:
Interesting, I thought no government were competent enough to make this happen. Clearly I was wrong.
Once the last mile is owned by the government / building / land owner. They should be able to choose what ever ISP they have without being locked into any one of them.
I am also a happy UTOPIA user. I have a full symmetric gigabit pipe to my house for less than $100 per month. There are huge benefits to open choice networks.
>UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) is not an Internet service provider. UTOPIA operates on an open access model, which means we own and manage the infrastructure, but lease the lines to private Internet Service Providers, who then deliver services to subscribers. This allows you to choose the provider that best meets your needs.
edit: added press link