[Chapter-delegates] Community owned Fiber Networks

[Alan Levin]

Hi,

I can say that in SA, the City of Cape Town (local government -
municipality) has built an open access "community" city-wide dark fibre
infrastructure network together with >20 distributed open access "switching
centres".

They have no intention in doing home users although simply by providing
cheap city wide back haul infrastructure for ISPs and telcos, the knock on
affect to the whole market (even to other parts of the country) has been
remarkable.

hth

Alan



On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi All –
>
>
>
> Apologies for a delay in responding.  I have been in some off-site
> meetings.
>
> See some musings below/in-line!
>
>
>
>
>
> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org
>
> Skype:  janercoffin
>
> Mobile/WhatsApp:  +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429>
>
> *From: *Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> on
> behalf of "daveb at dslprime.com" <daveb at dslprime.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM
> *To: *Glenn Mcknight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org" <chapter-delegates at elists.
> isoc.org>, Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
> dc3 at listas.altermundi.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [Chapter-delegates] Community owned Fiber Networks
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
> I've supported community networks for two decades, including by
> volunteering. It's a great dream and sometimes works. The Berkman report
> looks at some of the successes, nearly all muni. The city of Munich and
> Hamburg are among the best ISPs in Germany.
>
> However, many community networks have been miserable failures. Burlington
> Vermont and the multi-city UTOPIA went bankrupt after investment of tens of
> millions. That's unfortunately all too common. In addition, as those
> criticizing the Berkman report emphasize, many of these networks will never
> be able to repay the initial public investment. Dedicated believers on both
> sides emphasize the data that supports their position.
>
> ISOC has chosen to define "community networks" as bottom-up organizations *in
> areas that do not already have coverage.* That's where the need is
> greatest, but those areas are generally the hardest to cover. Low
> population density raises costs dramatically. Rural backhaul costs are
> usually ruinous. It's not impossible, but remarkably few bottom up
> community networks have delivered broadband for more than a few years.
> *We also support the DC-3 definition of a CN which targets underserved
> areas (underserved means many things), and we notably have supported
> NYCMesh and SFBay and just launched more work with Mark on indigenous
> communities in NA.
> The most constructive role ISOC could play is to find long term successes,
> learn from them, and pass on that information.
>
> *We are on that and looking at some great CNs to highlight this year per
> our CN campaign focus.  A great case-study from Tusheti, Georgia is here
> <https://cdn.prod.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TushetiCaseStudy_201701006_FInal.pdf>
> .
>
> *If you look at the DC-3 list – many sites on that list of CNs have great
> stories on their sites or more data.
>
> (As a reporter, I'm looking for examples to learn from. Please let me know
> off list. )
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> I've reported about why some succeed and others fail. *Nearly all the
> successes are supported by municipal power and/or water utilities. *Those
> without a local team experienced in running networks most often fail. There
> are dozens of examples. It is *hard* to reliably run a network for years.
>
> It's possible to learn how, especially if you have a technical background,
> which is why I'm hopeful for the Brooklyn Mesh.
> ================
>
> Supporting bottom up community networks is good work if we can do it
> effectively. But after twenty years, I can't think of a single country
> where they approach even 2%. These are old ideas, tried often, and only
> right in special circumstances.
>
>
> *The takeaway for ISOC is that we also need policies for the 98+% who will
> not be reached by our CN programs. **Great point.
> I like the A4AI’s “1 for 2” target
> <http://a4ai.org/1for2-affordability-target/> for affordable internet  —
> 1GB of mobile broadband data available for 2% or less of GNI per capita.
>
> ISOC has the funding, reputation, and desire to influence the cost of
> access for the remaining 98%.
>
> Let's figure out how we can be effective.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Editor, Fast Net News, Wireless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>



-- 
Alan Levin
----------------------------------
Chairman ISOC-ZA
+27 21 4882820 (ddi)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20180205/8d8666fe/attachment.htm>