----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca>
> On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but > > there is > > a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will > > in fact > > be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents > > as > > subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all > > of > > my municipality? > > I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal > deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested > in providing modern internet access. > > What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, > they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and > or DSL and then sue the city for reason X. Well, this is a place where Road Runner already *being* built in HFC is a *feature* to me; I'm not going to yank their franchise agreement. > The normal behaviour should be: "we'll gladly connect to the municipal > system". Are there any US examples of that actually happening? > A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be > compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 > deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data > channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies > without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. > In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all > IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
