🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18/03/2010 06:13, John Higdon wrote:
> In article
> <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
>   Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org>  wrote:
>
>> Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing
>> multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no
>> wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage.
>
> That begs the question: then why is it so mediocre in the US *cities*? I
> live in San Jose. What are my choices? 6Mb Sonic? 6Mb Speakeasy? (Cuz I
> live near the CO, I can get these; others aren't so fortunate.) Whoopee.
> If I didn't live exactly where I do, there are wireless business
> services I could get (but not here). And none of these are cheap.
>
> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous
> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here.
>
On the 15th March asked for comment on the following:-
"COMMENT SOUGHT ON MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING
SECTION 271 ACCESS TO DARK FIBER FACILITIES AND LINE SHARING
PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED"
<http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0115/DA-10-94A1.txt>

Verizons comments include:-
"Checklist Item 4 does not include dark fiber loops because dark fiber 
cannot transmit� anything � much less provide �transmission from [a] 
central office to [a] customer�s premises,� as the statute specifies � 
without the addition of electronics. See Verizon Comments 2-3; AT&T 
Comments 2-3. Checklist Item 5 similarly does not require dark fiber 
transport or dark fiber entrance facilities, because dark fiber cannot 
�transport� anything without the attachment of electronics. 47 U.S.C. � 
271(c)(2)(B)(v). Nor is dark fiber connected to �a wireline local 
exchange carrier switch,� and therefore cannot provide �transport from 
the trunk side� of such a switch, as the statute specifies."
"But dark fiber � which, by definition, is incapable of transmit[ting]� 
or �transport[ing]� anything � is not a �service.� Therefore, the 
requirement to provide transport �unbundled from . . . other services� 
does not include dark fiber, which is a glass strand unbundled from all 
services."
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396213>

While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be 
allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and 
capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they should be 
allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the fibre.