I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there yet.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber > from > a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever > on their own. > > That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs > on the other > side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be > an > "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can > imagine) > install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in > the colo > and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that > applies to > all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. > > So I think we are completely on the same page now. > > Owen > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <r...@maine.edu> wrote: > > > I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having > > switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some > > instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use > > their own equipment. > > > > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you > > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a > > service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or > > gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the > > municipality or public utility is a good fit. > > > > Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. > > > > BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm > > talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if > > you look at the long term picture. > > > > Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the > > right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't > > think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the > > interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a > > "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service. > > If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no > > change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > >> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is > that its > >> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part > a > >> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales > went in > >> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to > >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the > total > >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many > >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but > >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the > cleanest > >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 > with > >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology > >> used. > >> > >> > >> Scott Helms > >> Vice President of Technology > >> ZCorum > >> (678) 507-5000 > >> -------------------------------- > >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > >> -------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <r...@maine.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. > >>> > >>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not > >>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to > >>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will > >>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve > >>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so > >>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow > >>> service. > >>> > >>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a > >>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at > >>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the > >>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house > >>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. > >>> > >>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between > >>> generation and transmission. > >>> > >>> That's Step #1. > >>> > >>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. > >>> > >>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. > >>> > >>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment > >>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people > >>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, > >>> you need to get creative. > >>> > >>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of > >>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. > >>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust > >>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the > >>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust > >>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. > >>> > >>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH > >>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. > >>> > >>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant > >>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things > >>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an > >>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains > >>> subscribers. > >>> > >>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as > >>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. > >>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that > >>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but > >>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to > >>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. > >>> > >>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues > >>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a > >>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. > >>> > >>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and > >>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling > >>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford > >>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in > >>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller > >>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone > >>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aa...@wholesaleinternet.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: > >>>> > >>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they > >>>> laid > >>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for > free? > >>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? > >>>> > >>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? > >>>> > >>>> Aaron > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually > >>>>> in > >>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes > to > >>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city > >>>>> funded, > >>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been > >>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles > >>>>> and > >>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling > >>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell > >>>>> service > >>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. > >>>>> > >>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've > >>>>> generally > >>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue > >>>>> to pay > >>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because > >>>>> municipal > >>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a > cost-recovery > >>>>> basis. > >>>>> > >>>>> Miles Fidelman > >>>>> > >>>>> Aaron wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet > >>>>>> access > >>>>>> to it's residents? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in > >>>>>>> free > >>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 > >>>>>>> connection" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <iki...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always > on > >>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other > >>>>>>>> utility? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Blake > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >>>>>>>>>> municipalities > >>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jay, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. > There > >>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private > >>>>>>>>> organization > >>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at > >>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>> exorbitant price. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; > once > >>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so > >>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or > >>>>>>>>> via > >>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network > >>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar > happen > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were > >>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint > >>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on > the > >>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure > side. > >>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight > >>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com > b...@herrin.us > >>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/ > > > >>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ================================================================ > >>>> Aaron Wendel > >>>> Chief Technical Officer > >>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) > >>>> (816)550-9030 > >>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com > >>>> ================================================================ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ray Patrick Soucy > >>> Network Engineer > >>> University of Maine System > >>> > >>> T: 207-561-3526 > >>> F: 207-561-3531 > >>> > >>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > >>> www.maineren.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ray Patrick Soucy > > Network Engineer > > University of Maine System > > > > T: 207-561-3526 > > F: 207-561-3531 > > > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > > www.maineren.net > >
