On 07/22/2014 02:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. > > The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. > > The underlying goal is "reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP". > > The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that > barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports > on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any > type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP > customer. > > To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs > to become their clients* as well... > > Cheers, > -- jra
I guess my counter to that argument is this. Here we are still trying to leverage copper and I liken the L1/L2 argument to selling wholesale DSL from AT&T (which we do) compared to being a CLEC (which we also are). I much prefer the CLEC model where I provide my own L2 gear. Yeah, there is more capital outlay, but then I control it. I don't have some 3rd party messing around with configurations and break something and then I have to find them and get them to correct it. Also, I don't have to fit into their L2 restrictions, etc. These things can happen at L1 too I suppose, but in our experience it is still better. Steve -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Saner <ssa...@hubris.net> Voice: 316-858-3000 Director of Network Operations Fax: 316-858-3001 Hubris Communications http://www.hubris.net
