[GTALUG] Fwd: HISTORIC opportunity for cheaper Internet in Toronto

[Dave Collier-Brown]

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.

--dave

On 2021-01-29 6:11 p.m., D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> | From: David Collier-Brown via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
>
> | 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 talk at gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-brown at indexexchange.com |              -- Mark Twain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210129/70043f0b/attachment.html>