<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="-1">I definitely agree: NB and Nova Scotis have done
some work with fixed tariffs for access to public poles... this
is a workaround to private duopolies.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">--dave</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-01-29 6:11 p.m., D. Hugh
Redelmeier via talk wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15642a71-575f-683-ed2a-d08f1be373a@mimosa.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">| From: David Collier-Brown via talk <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org"><talk@gtalug.org></a>
| A proposal for a community broadband, in Toronto!
I actually think that there is a better approach.
The free market is generally a good way to provide services but there are
failure modes in the free market. The main failure mode is monopoly. A
second failure mode is not providing services to customers who cost more
than the revenue that they generate.
Problem 1: monopolies. Ones that are vertically and horizontally
integrated. Technically, duopolies, but who's counting.
The solution isn't to replace them with another monopoly (a government
body).
The solution:
- recognize that there is a natural monopoly and create a regulated field
for them. The obvious natural monopoly is the physical substrate of the
networks.
In fact, there are certain parts of the network that could have
competition. The last mile isn't one of those parts.
- forbid any integration with the monopoly entity. For example, if it
provides physical connectivity, it must not provide services.
- the monopoly must be regulated to behave in "common carrier" mode:
it must not differentiate in price based upon what the network is
carrying. "Network Neutrality"
- a nice competitive market for services should be possible. New services
can be freely invented. Evidence: the web has a larger set of choices
and kinds of services that the phone system.
Problem 2: apparently poor folks are not getting enough broadband.
- should we subsidize service for them (us)? Perhaps they're making a
rational choice on how to allocate their resources.
- should we subsidize connectivity for everyone? There are advantages to
avoiding discontinuities in policies
Years ago, POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) was subsidized, mostly by
charging a lot more for long distance service (considered a luxury).
This worked fine for a long time but broke down. It isn't clear whether
this was good policy.
As soon as the single-system, single-provider model of phone service broke
down, lots of creativity bloomed.
Consider the road system as a model. That's a public resource. I don't
100% know how to analogize this.
- roads are (mostly, best) provided publicly
- vehicles are provided by a variety of actors (private, mostly, but also
public transit)
- regulation is by many levels of government, for many separate purposes
- a lot of people are killed on the roads.
Problem 3: stupid underbuilding of infrastructure
Require all builders to provide fibre connectivity in each building.
Controversial: that fibre should reach a local, neutral hub where a choice
of connectivity providers have presence. The building owner should own
this fibre. If there are tenants, the building owner should provide
equitable access to that fibre.
---
Post to this mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org">talk@gtalug.org</a>
Unsubscribe from this mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk">https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com">dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com</a> | -- Mark Twain</pre>
</body>
</html>