| From: David Collier-Brown via talk <talk@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@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk