Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Own Your Own Tail
Intriguing idea of the day:
Last month, construction was completed on a pilot project that ran fiber optic cables to 400 homes in Ottawa. Stringing fiber optic cables isn't a big deal by itself -- Verizon has been running fiber to millions of homes in the US -- but the Ottawa project comes with a twist: rather than providing Internet access for a monthly fee, the company plans to sell the fiber strands outright to individual homeowners.
This isn't how we're used to doing telecommunications infrastructure. Traditionally, a "last mile" copper loop, coax cable, or fiber strand has been owned by an incumbent telephone or cable company, and the customer has paid a monthly fee for telecom services. But, if the Ottawa experiment is a success, that could change.
In the future, it could become commonplace for homes to come with "tails." These customer-owned, fiber-optic connections would link them to a network peering point. Without the expense of rolling out last mile infrastructure to every home, many more ISPs could afford to serve a given neighborhood by running wiring to the peering point, leading to more competition and lower prices. Perhaps best of all, the growth of customer-owned fiber could make debates over "open access" and network neutrality moot, as robust telecom competition should prevent the worst of the monopolistic behavior exhibited by telco and cable incumbents.
For more -- including some of the practical barriers such projects will have to overcome -- go here.
|8.7.08 @ 1:47PM|#
For more -- including some of the
practicalpolitical barriers such projects will have to overcome -- go here.
There, fixed it for you.
Seriously, if a person thinks that telecoms that currently have
monopolies on the "last mile" won't fight this tooth and nail they
are in for a rude awakening.
|8.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Seems like high probability of legal morass. Amortization of the "last mile" cost allows companies to offer flat installation fees. It also provides one point of contact to deal with easements/property lines, siting UG utilities, etc. In the owner pay system, each would have to deal with all this crap. Also, I see litigation when your neighbor (or your city, or gas, phone, electric co.) cuts/floods/burns/uproots your cable and gives you flack about paying for the fix.
|8.7.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Am I missing something? Owning the last mile is only relevant if
you're connected to an open access switch point. Why would I want
to own the fiber under my yard that is connected to one and only
one access provider? Bah.
(And yes, I have fiber. And cable. For redundancy. And both run at
15 Mbps download. And fiber at 15 upload. phhhhpppbbblllttt)
|8.7.08 @ 2:31PM|#
MP,
The idea is that the overwhelming majority of the expense in
providing endpoint access (phone, water, gas, electricity, etc.)is
not in the main trunk and backbone services but in the "last mile"
neighborhood branches. That expense is a major barrier to entry for
smaller players.
Having not RTFA,I guess the idea would be to have a singular
"backbone node"* serviced by multiple carriers. It would then be
the homeowner's responsibility to a) run the infrastructure from
home to node and b)pick the carrier that best fit the bill.
* This node would likely be a common location either owned by a
telecom or rented by mulitple telecoms with security, backup power
generation,etc. I would suggest centralized yet fictionalized
locations like 31 Spooner Street or 742 Evergreen Terrace.
|8.7.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Kwix,
The problem is that it makes no sense for the homeowner to run to a
node that lies any farther than the telephone pole outside their
house. Developing a star network that has node to endpoint links
that are longer than pole to house is grossly inefficient.
It's also grossly inefficient to have switching nodes at every
telephone pole.
You could consider developing a star network that has the same
layout as our existing infrastructure (pole to pole around the
loop, with pole to house spurs off the loop), with a switch node
that connects the loop to an array of providers, but then if
homeowners only pony up for the spurs, who controls/maintains the
loop?
|8.7.08 @ 3:39PM|#
BTW, the article discusses a concept of "condominium fiber",
which attempts to address the concerns I raise, but (which the
article doesn't state) has the same regulated monopoly issues as
the current infrastructure.
And even if you believe that a consumer owned "last mile" could
work, what about the redundancy of having multiple providers
connecting to the same switching points? This still creates massive
network duplication in itself.
Wireless really is a much better dream solution, but since it'll
never match the reliability and speed of a wired network, it will
never become reality for most consumers.
Picky Dick|8.7.08 @ 4:04PM|#
And if the cables go bad, the consumer will now have to pay the cost of repair / replacement
|8.7.08 @ 5:04PM|#
"""I worry about who fixes it when it breaks."""
The worry about who will fix it will be replaced by the agony of
expense.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245