Should WiscNet have a government granted monopoly to provide Internet access service to schools, regardless of competitive circumstances?
I'm an early adopter, a developer, and a technology bellwether - a farmer, a pacifist, a writer, a father, and a husband.
Well it is a member-governed non-profit cooperative and that means it is either going to cost Wisconsin less or Wisconsin will get more for their money. Additionally a member governed body will ensure that the schools get what they need not what a service provider either decides to offer or offers in the hopes of giving the least and getting the most for it. Anyway you know my bias - I think community owned networks are the wave of the future and the only sane way to do telcommunications from a community perspective.
Posted by: Doug Alder | July 22, 2004 at 10:43 PM
As a statewide utility does it have the benefits associated with community owned networks?
Posted by: fp | July 23, 2004 at 06:49 AM
As long as it follows the principle of divorcing service providers from network providers then yes I would say it does. In the end analysis that is the single factor that creates value for the communities in community owned networks. All other benefits, to the community from the network flow from that principle, imnsho.
btw Frank - if you are going to get involved in any projects like the FTTH one I'm doing I suggest you take a serious look at Packet Front - http://www.packetfront.com/. They have some dynamite technology for the CPE, POPs and NOC. Using active optical networking with their technology gives hte end user the ability to switch service providers on the fly via a web interface. If you use a PON system, rather than AON, then your network techs have to get involved in switching the vlan tags etc to allow you to switch providers as it is centrally controlled rather than end user controlled
I can see where going with PON is attractive to the telcos because it's conceptual design is similar to that of their curreent networks - the intelligence is at the network core, thus giving the telco control over every service on the network (also cheaper to build - fewer POPs required and less fiber required). AON is a "stupid" network - it puts the intelligence at the network edge. Needless to say we are going with the AON model.
Posted by: Doug Alder | July 25, 2004 at 02:24 PM