Response to CenturyLink on Property Node Placement
Don, thanks for contacting me regarding placing a node on my property. Under prior circumstance, I would be all for the placement of CenturyLink equipment on my property, even without compensation. However, since CenturyLink and Qwest determined that they would not allow third party transmission over their FTTN/ADSL2 system, and thusly locked out third party ISP partnerships, I cannot provide service over your new infrastructure to my own home. In addition, Qwest made promises in 2004 blocking the UTOPIA municipal network from being established in Salt Lake City, which subsequently have been filled by restricting higher speeds (but lower than UTOPIA) to their own use. This strategy was not outlined to the Salt Lake City council. It is worth noting that if Qwest had supported UTOPIA in Salt Lake City, there would be no need for you to be asking me for property placement, but you would still be able to participate as a provider on a superior fiber-optic network.
As someone who must understand the technical aspects of Internet provision, you must realize that CenturyLink’s refusal to partner with third-party ISPs is purely administrative and not technical. I would imagine that they would have enough foresight to realize that if they are the only ISP in town using public right-of-ways, local regulation may wake up and state that they need to share their infrastructure whether they like it or not. In that case, it would be better to start wholesaling their infrastructure now (with a wholesale price that is actually lower than their retail price, unlike your existing DSL product), than be forced to later.
I would welcome further discussions with you on this topic if there is intent to move in a mutually beneficial direction. However if that beneficial direction is characterized as a one-time payment, then we can stop right here.