The problem in the US is that small ISPs like Brett, are getting squeezed by the large operators who are not required to wholesale backhaul to small ISPs at low prices and who use unfair competitive practices to drive them out of business.

In the Netherlands, an ISP like Brett can buy capacity from the incumbent KPN (for VDSL) or from a fiber company (which is often a consortium involving the city/region). Incumbent operators who roll out fiber are also required to share their networks. In fact, the Dutch incumbent, KPN, decided to drop their objection to muni broadband (fiber) and declared that sharing networks is good for everyone, including KPN.

Brett hates the muni broadband movement because he thinks it competes with his business. So although he should direct his ire at large companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, and at politicians who pass laws that favor the big guys at the expense of small WISPs, he prefers to target munis, in part because it’s easier and more acceptable to adopt an anti-tax, anti-government stance (the de facto religion in the US since 1980, now discredited after the financial crisis).

If the US has strong line-sharing regulations and if US local governments were rolling out fiber networks (not necessarily fiber to home, but fiber rings) that ISPs like Brett could access at a low price, there would be many more ISPs here who could make a decent living.

So I understand Brett’s concern with net neutrality laws. He has to manage the bandwidth he sells to his users because it costs him a lot of money to buy it from the backhaul operator. If the law prevents him from doing that, in effect, he cannot manage his costs. No business can survive that. The answer isn’t to ban muni broadband but to get munis and private companies to join together in creating robust fiber networks that offer backhaul to ISPs like Brett at low prices.

Brett G.: what this country needs is more openness and honesty.

1) Inapproprate business model – yes. Free is not business plan and targeted advertising almost as silly with the capital expenditures made. Once that concept started, everybody else was pretty much out of the game until MetroFi and Earthlink went under or got out of the way.

2) Inapproprate Technology – NO! Inappropriate RF design. Poor RF analysis from AP to client. Poor RF/financial modeling. Do it the right way, and this technology is fine. In fact, there is a clause in the FCC rules that makes this model even more appropriate now.

3) Inappropriate owners – hmmm, tough one here. I have worked with some cities that are pretty solid and others that just don’t have the technical expertise or vision. No different than the private companies that deployed the failed models. Either way, the consultants or leader of the project needs to have more information and knowledge of the past and what new equipment has come to market to make a better design.