Mon 19 May 2008
Broadweave has repeatedly insisted that the only way for iProvo to work is if it becomes a closed network with one provider operating both the retail and wholesale operations. Perhaps, then, they can explain why it is that they agreed to "provide access to alternate service providers for a fee" as part of their utility easement in the Sienna Hills subdivision near Washington City? (See SITLA Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2005, pg. 7) If such an arrangement were not economically viable, wouldn't Broadweave have walked away? It's a tacit admission that open networks can work financially.
It's also telling that as a part of their easement in Washington County, Broadweave also wanted to be awarded automatic contracts to develop telecommunications systems throughout the School & Institutional Trust Lands Administration's future projects. The board was rightfully spooked by this implication and voted against granting such a restriction. (See SITLA Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2005, pg. 25)
2 Responses to “ Broadweave’s Double-Talk on Open Networks ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Broadweave’s Doubletalk on Project Sizes » Free UTOPIA!
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm[...] than 27 residences into each acre, the claim is simply absurd. Maybe they're already counting unpromised future contracts in that total. Didn't other companies already try that one? Share and Enjoy: These icons [...]
-
Pingback from Letter to Provo’s Municipal Council » Free UTOPIA!
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 am[...] ownership and the poor value of open networks while failing to practice what they preach. (See: http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/19/broadweaves-double-talk-on-open-networks/ and http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/20/broadweaves-double-talk-on-equipment-ownership/) It is [...]
