On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:55 , Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in > home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports > of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports > 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own > layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a > central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and > cooling. > > "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N > potential > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge > problem." > > There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs > is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in > city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted > money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of > dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a > location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each > extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation.
Areas that will attract a high number of ISPs will have sufficient subscriber density to justify larger-capacity shelves for each of them. Places where ISPs will buy smaller capacity shelves are places that will have a low number of ISPs. > > > "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 > facilities > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?" > > No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How > that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about > is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to > build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. No, what consumers want is cheap reliable bandwidth that doesn't become slow and antiquated in a few years. Frankly, I don't care whether it's a municipality or an NGO or a private enterprise. What I want is a law that says "If you operate L1, you can't play at L2+. If you operate L1, then you must offer the same product offerings to all L2+ providers on the same terms at the same price.". If you've got that, then someone will find a way for everyone who wants to compete for L2+ services in a given area to get or create an L1 capability that they can share. Doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard to justify building a colo and SWC together in most cases. $300,000 sounds pretty cheap, actually. Owen
