Comment
Just added some comments on the other blog posting about this sharing my observations about why KCK won at:
http://www.techhui.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1702911%3ABlogPost%3A7...
I agree that open access Layer 1 infrastructure is a very powerful approach. It focuses innovation and competition on services and innovation rather than on construction of infrastructure. It also makes issues of content discrimination and net neutrality go away, since if you don't like your service provider's practices you have choice over the same infrastructure. This was not feasible for our initiative for schools, libraries, colleges and universities in Hawaii.
But this approach is not natural for the private sector in the U.S. It takes a lot of government will to build Muni Networks in competition with incumbent providers, and in many places the lobbying has been fierce to pass laws to prevent them. NC is the poster child for that right now, e.g.:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21263
Another approach is the new Australian National Broadband Network. This was a big issue in the last national election and may have swayed rural reps to support the current PM. In brief, they are opening up the incumbent's network with a combination of regulation and big money, implementing FTTP where feasible, and building out wireless to the most rural areas where FTTP isn't reasonable. You can google the project or check out the official govt website at:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network
Singapore did something similar, but I find the AU example more instructive for the U.S. given the greater similarities between us.
@Paul - Interesting question. I might be for that if, as you suggest, its Layer 1 only. I'm curious what David thinks about this. It could be an outcropping of the ultra-high speed network already going into the UH campuses and libraries.
@Ken LOL!
So.. do I mention the possible elephant in the room?
How about a high-speed municipal network. There are now 133 municipalities with such a network in place.
To be honest I'm not entirely keen on an idea of a state run ISP, I'm more inclined to go with the idea of the state providing layer 1 (physical) and selling access to providers.
Aloha Fellow Techuians!!
Im somewhat confused. Wasn't the winning pool of select communities chosen for Google's GigaBit Network supposed to be "in a small number of trial locations across the country" (the number I heard kicked around was between 50~60 initial trial locations).
So then why is Kansas City, Kansas the 'only' winner announced by Google?? With ~1,000 applicants and a pool of 50~60 to be chosen as pilot trial beta site winners, I would have thought for sure Hawaii would have been a shoe-in as one of the pilot trial locations chosen, especially since we have the most compelling list of business, economic, social, need-based reasons, etc. by far verses almost any other of the 1,000's applicants submitted from across the USA.
So, can someone shed light as to why there is just 1 chosen pilot trial beta site winner, aka Kansas City, Kansas??
Here are some original links for Google's GigaBit Network, so you can check out their wording:
http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-exper...
http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/public/overview
Mahalo,
Rubén
And the winner is... Kansas City, Kansas.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_selects_kansas_city_for...
© 2024 Created by Daniel Leuck. Powered by
You need to be a member of TechHui to add comments!
Join TechHui