----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jérôme Nicolle" <jer...@ceriz.fr>
> Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a écrit : > > Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets > > smaller players play. > > Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has > been an ongoing debate for a few years and is now almost stable. [ ... ] > Infrastructure operators can also provide a L2 service but are still > required to offer L1 service to any willing ISP. In such case, > collocation space in street cabinets (or the ability to install their > own side by side with passive cabinets) is required. > > This model has been choosed because it lets both network types be > deployed : either point to multipoint (GePON) or point to point is > possible on any of these fiber networks, thanks to the local-loop > (between residences and MMRs) beeing point to point only. > > Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the infrastructure > operator or another ISP already present on site. But some tends to stick > to L1 service and deply their own eqipments for many reasons. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, Jerome. :-) How is it working out in practice, since it's within about 10% of what I proposed to do? Are there any public numbers we can look at? 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
