No. Their owners and employees might be.
204 karma · joined November 3, 2020
The above statement makes no sense at all. The whole Internet is built on connections between autonomous systems and all traffic is IP based. There is nothing but ASNs and IPs and information about them and the flows between them is extremely helpful in operating an ISP.
It is a very straightforward way for municipalities to incentivize and create competition.
As to other infrastructure projects, there are ways of calculating the public benefit to determine whether the project has positive ROI, even if no direct payments are made by the public.
I’d be making mad cash if I had a municipalwide fiber network at my disposal.
If there is no muni network to be, I hope you are at least leasing dark fiber and other assets to ISPs.
The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose?
Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to.
There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism.
A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
Did you miss that part?
The best case scenario requires that the municipality is also underserved.
> But without significant scale and guaranteed uptake --- hard when you're competing with two household name ISPs --- the fixed costs of just running an ISP (or the backend infrastructure for a white-label ISP to build on top of) are prohibitive.
This is incorrect. Running an ISP is very cheap and the fixed costs are minor. It’s the building of a network that is expensive.
Source: I personally run an ISP and have built multiple networks.
Obviously interested parties as well as the general public should be allowed input to the legislative process. However, input should not be solely or even primarily be sought from moneyed interests. The legislature has entire government departments at their disposal and should if need be commission their own research.
2. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices. Seeking out moneyed interests is not.
Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
How you share bandwidth between parties depends on the setup. More often than not the end user only has one service provider at a time, thus there is neither any sharing or contention.
Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
The municipality owns all the hard assets, such as ducts, pits, poles and fiber optic cables. Private service providers then sell Internet access and other services that on top of that.
The municipality cannot leak or hand over information it does not have.
Open access is a tried and true concept, easy to implement. However, you should also be working on better local governance, since that is the root cause.
https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/finpos/rtk
However, you can easily setup your own RTK base station for a few hundred bucks. Very convenient to use the free service to determine the static coordinates of your base station.
Most consumers can’t or won’t pay the outlay up front, but that’s why you use financing.
Averaging 3 Mbps of usage does not mean the gigabit connection drops down to 0.5% nightly. The key here is for the ISP to have enough excess backhaul to account for the occasional burst above the 3 Mbps average. As long as there is sufficient headroom, nobody will notice the oversubscription.
Not really, congestion is only an issue for poorly designed or poorly run ISPs.
Fiber costs far less than $15k on average and it is as good as new after 10 years.