<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is MuniBroadband For Public Good?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Om Malik</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99893</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Om Malik]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99893</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Om you&#8217;re right - the real argument centers around state-wide muni bans.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are so many methods of connectivity and funding munis can pursue, it&#8217;s impossible to make blanket statements about how they&#8217;d be outdated to quickly, aren&#8217;t a good idea, etc.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;You&#8217;d need to argue them case by case, which is how it should be.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Statewide muni bans are the bells and cable companies making that decision for us. &lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Om you&#8217;re right &#8211; the real argument centers around state-wide muni bans.</p>
<p>There are so many methods of connectivity and funding munis can pursue, it&#8217;s impossible to make blanket statements about how they&#8217;d be outdated to quickly, aren&#8217;t a good idea, etc.</p>
<p>You&#8217;d need to argue them case by case, which is how it should be.</p>
<p>Statewide muni bans are the bells and cable companies making that decision for us. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Berger</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99894</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Berger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;If Muni&#8217;s would focus on building &#8220;Layer 1&#8243; infrastructure (Conduit/Dark Fiber/Open Access Collocation for handoff of fiber) then it would be exactly like roads, sewer and water utilities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The muni&#8217;s would not be dealing with easily obsoleted technology. Conduit builds would have a 50 year lifetime and the dark fiber would have at least a 10 year lifetime. It could be properly funded by Muni bonds and maintened by muni &#8220;men in trucks&#8221;, very little tech.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The services would all be provided by competitive service providers (which could be a mix of commercial and &#8220;coop&#8221; if there was a market desire for that). The competitive service providers would have open access at cost+ rates to the dark fiber to homes and businesses on a link by link basis. They, not the muni&#8217;s would &#8220;lite&#8221; the fiber. A whole ecosystem of service providers would be enabled this way (fiber lighters, VoIP, Video on Demand, etc) could leverage the local, open access collocation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This would truely open up broadband and deliver the proper mix of municipal / commercial ballance. But it would still piss off the incumbents, who should be allowed to go out of business from such a disruptive technological advance if they can&#8217;t cope. &lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Muni&#8217;s would focus on building &#8220;Layer 1&#8243; infrastructure (Conduit/Dark Fiber/Open Access Collocation for handoff of fiber) then it would be exactly like roads, sewer and water utilities.</p>
<p>The muni&#8217;s would not be dealing with easily obsoleted technology. Conduit builds would have a 50 year lifetime and the dark fiber would have at least a 10 year lifetime. It could be properly funded by Muni bonds and maintened by muni &#8220;men in trucks&#8221;, very little tech.</p>
<p>The services would all be provided by competitive service providers (which could be a mix of commercial and &#8220;coop&#8221; if there was a market desire for that). The competitive service providers would have open access at cost+ rates to the dark fiber to homes and businesses on a link by link basis. They, not the muni&#8217;s would &#8220;lite&#8221; the fiber. A whole ecosystem of service providers would be enabled this way (fiber lighters, VoIP, Video on Demand, etc) could leverage the local, open access collocation.</p>
<p>This would truely open up broadband and deliver the proper mix of municipal / commercial ballance. But it would still piss off the incumbents, who should be allowed to go out of business from such a disruptive technological advance if they can&#8217;t cope. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Kopelman</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99895</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesse Kopelman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/01/13/is-munibroadband-for-public-good/#comment-99895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Re: Robert Berger&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Yes. &lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Robert Berger</p>
<p>Yes. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

