Fw: Re: We need a better Internet in America

[Seth Cohn]

Long distance companies are a model to look toward: You pay based on
the company you use, and can and do switch based on the best
choices/prices for your usages.
As we all know, packet traffic is trackable, especially at the more
local routers.  It would be very easy
to bill based on bandwidth usages at the local routers, if those local
neighborhood nodes are 'shared' infrastructural costs among 2 or more
companies.  Heck, we KNOW they do it now, at the higher levels...
companies share network resources at major routers, and pay for bulk
usage.

>  Look at FiOS.  Verizon got the hell out of NH because there's no
> money in ut.  FairPoint apparently can't afford to keep the copper
> maintained, let alone build out fiber.

Both of which point to that a shared infrastructure would help solve
lowering the overall cost, and
increasing competition would cause companies to embrace that option,
as opposed to only one company getting the monopoly and having no
reason to share.

>  It's a hard problem to solve.

It's not that hard.  We have lots of existing models to look at, and
see what works.

>  One idea I've heard that seems like it might be good is "structural
> separation".  One company runs the lines, but doesn't offer service
> over them.  Other companies offer service over the common lines.
> Lines could be privately owned, or owned by the town and run by
> contract, like roads.  I've read it's been done successfully in some
> smaller European countries.

Exactly.