The internet can be thought of as a public highway that’s been developed and maintained by the gov’t and regulatory bodies. Content/applications/development have flourished on it.

And since we’ve had a multiplicity of ways to GET TO the internet via the private sector ISPs, it doesn’t seem to be a problem to most folks. Companies are competing to be the onramps (ISPs). Matt’s metaphor of UPS employees developing and delivering all content doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s only now, when faced with the expense of deploying fiber to the premises, that the previous way of providing on-ramps (public or private) to the public internet poses a problem.

Just like traditional roads, government will manage the roads but will not own the businesses that use those roads to deliver goods and services. Government’s role will be limited to providing a well-maintained, high performance road system that is used by a wide variety of service providers. Each service provider will pay to use the road system to deliver their goods and services, and will do so happily because they will be able to reach more customers at much less cost.

Cities like Palo Alto, California and Danville, Virginia have already selected this model.

I was struck by two things. First was the need for communities to maintain forward momentum on their community technology projects. According to Matt, conducting a study to review the previous study is not good for momentum and I agree. Doing things creates and maintains momentum.

Secondly, is that creating and operating a community network is not one decision; it will be an ongoing series of decisions about technology, business strategies, partnerships, financing, pricing and management. Governance of the network is the consideration as the network is forming. If you work hard and smart at that, your chances for success increase greatly.