Re: Data Center testing

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:32:42PM +, Dylan Ebner wrote:
> I always love it when I get an outage report from my ISP's or datacenter
> and they say an "unexpected issue" or "unforseen issue" caused the
> problem.

Well, at least it's better than "yeah, we knew about it, but didn't think it
was worth worrying about".

- Matt

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Alexander Harrowell]

On Wednesday 26 August 2009 23:16:17 Robert Enger - NANOG wrote:
> As tedious as the downstream can be, engineering the upstream path of a
> cable plant is worse. A lot of older systems were never designed for
> upstream service.  Even if the amps are retrofitted, the plant is just not
> tight enough. Desirably, fiber should be pushed deeper; the quantity of
> cascaded amps reduced, coax fittings and splitters replaced and so on.
>
> On 8/26/2009 10:25 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> > The trouble with broadband in rural America is the twisted pair loop
> > lengths that average around 20,000 feet. To use VDSL, the loop length
> > needs to down around 3000, so they're stuck with ADSL unless the ILEC
> > wants to install a lot of repeaters. And VDSL is the enabler of triple
> > play over twisted pair.
> >

An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average trench 
mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre deployment 
uneconomic. Now, this point can change:

1) as we deploy fibre we'll get more efficient at it - I think VZ's cost per 
sub 
has come down quite a lot since they started the FIOS rollout.
2) the flip side of the cost to serve a subscriber is of course revenue, and if 
you can find other services to sell'em you can go further. may also be scope 
for tiered pricing
3) public sector investment

Going the other way, as the population gets denser, it becomes harder to 
provide an acceptable broadband wireless service because of spectrum 
limitations. You either need more and more cells (=more and more sites and 
more and more backhaul), or more and more spectrum.

Where's the crossover point? There are clearly places where some fibre 
investment (like L(3)'s proposed deployment of many more POPs) would make it 
possible to get good service out using radio from the end of the fibre, 
precisely because they are sparse. There are clearly places where fibre to the 
home will eventually arrive.

Is there a broadband gap between the two groups, however, where it's not dense 
enough to ever deploy fibre and too dense to deploy good wireless? Or can we 
rely on FTTH for one lot and RTTR (Radio to the Ranch) for the other?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

ADMIN: RE: MTAs used

[Simon Lyall]

Please note that this thread has been moderated as off-topic.

The Mail operations email list http://www.mailop.org/ may be a more 
appropriate venue for the discussion.


Simon
NANOG MLC

--
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

Avaya (or other folks) who work with the CNA/APC (route reflector)

[Drew Weaver]

Hi,

All of my contacts within Avaya who work with the CNA/APC system have seemingly 
vanished, does anyone on the list have any contacts in Avaya which still know 
about the existence of this product?

Also, does anyone have any contact information for someone at Internap who has 
sales information about the FCP product?

thanks,
-Drew

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Fred,

I picked Aroostook, Washington, and Lincoln counties for a 4g wireless
with backhaul infrastructure proposal. A wireline infrastructure
proposal for these counties (BIP) would, for some arbitrary amount of
capital expense, serve some of the population in towns, but leave the
non-in-town populations with no change in infrastructure. I thought
about adding a western (mountainous) county to the mix, but for a
proof-of-concept those three are representative of most of rural Maine.
All qualify as "rural remote", being more than 50 miles from a city of
20,000, or a suburban area of 50,000 (USDA RUS definition of "rural
remote"). Not many of either of those in Maine anyway.

As I wrote yesterday, "triple play" simply hasn't sold "broadband"
(source: USDA stats and Maine ISP experience), therefore uptake and
post-stimulus subscriber retention are wicked important. The BTOP
vehicle provides two additional non-infrastructure grant opportunities,
for "public computer centers" and for "sustainable broadband adoption",
so as I wrote those I attempted to make best use of link properties and
to-the-centers (not home, or curb) and whatever "sustainable" might mean
and the available statutory purposes and therefore services above link
to propose something innovative.

My guess (its in my proposal so I guess its my proposal writing money
bet) is that "rural broadband" means something other than IPv4 DHCP
provisioned, fat but flaky pipes allowing access to asymmetric content.
That works in the suburban and urban markets, but its failed, according
to the USDA and my Maine ISP competitors, in rural USA and Maine.

While I share (other hat, we signed our first zone last year and our
second zone will be signed this year) the "suggesting special favors for
deployment of DNSSEC" discussion with myself, I think this misses the
gambled mandatory-to-implement-feature (see "gamble", above) of
locality. {Packet|Connection} users in rural areas have some requirement
more pressing than parity of access to the service model that meets the
requirements of non-rural {Packet|Connection} users.

Eric


Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband 
implies fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to 
the economy - infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, 
and so on. I could pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special 
favors for deployment of DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the 
stimulus money to propel a leap forward, not just waste it.


On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:


I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based
on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is.  If any anyone
has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the
stimulus infrastructure grant loan money.  So there are a lot of
political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than
one would think.  I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the
older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure
the definition stays as low as can be.  They don't want to see the gov
funding there competition.  Just my 2 cents.

-carlos

-Original Message-
From: Ted Fischer [mailto:t...@fred.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband



Paul Timmins wrote:

Fred Baker wrote:


On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:


What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be



going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years to come.



Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and

broadband

was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital
signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the



term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included
virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM.

of or relating to or being a communications network in which the
bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals

(as

for voice or data or video)

That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed
Internet".



Seconded

Re: Qwest IPv6

[Chris Gotstein]

Qwest is still beta testing IPv6.  We turned ours up last week and were 
one of the first to do so.  I can go through my notes and email you the 
contact info of the people that are working on that.


Kevin Brown wrote:


Does anyone have a contact at Qwest who can help us get the ball rolling 
to implement an exchange of IPv6 traffic?  Their NOC referred us back to 
our account manager, who said "We don't do IPv6".  A quick Google search 
would seem to indicate otherwise...


Thanks!



--
Chris Gotstein
Sr Network Engineer
UP Logon/Computer Connection UP
500 N Stephenson Ave
Iron Mountain, MI 49801
Phone: 906-774-4847
Fax: 906-774-0335
ch...@uplogon.com

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Alexander 
Harrowell wrote:
> An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average trench 
> mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre deployment 
> uneconomic. Now, this point can change:

This statement makes no sense to me.

The cost to dig a trench is cheaper in rural areas than it is in
urban areas.  A lot cheaper.  Rather than closing a road, cutting
a trench, avoiding 900 other obsticals, repaving, etc they can often
trench or go aerial down the side of a road for miles with no
obsticals and nothing but grass to put back.

So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
increases.  The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
may serve 20 familes.

But more puzzling to me is the idea that fiber becomes uneconomic.
This may have once been true, but right now you can buy 10km or
even 40km lasers quite cheaply.  Compare with copper which for even
modest speeds requires a repeater every 2-4km.

If you have to reach someone 20km from the CO, the cost of running
the ditch-wich down the road in a rural area is not the dominate
cost over the next 20 years.  It's equipment.  If the copper plant
takes 4 repeaters to do the job, that's 4 bits of equipment that
can fail, and will need to be upgraded at some point.  Running
something as simple as point to point fiber they can be provided
with GigE speeds today with no intermediate equipment; the cost of
a 20km GBIC is far less than the cost of installing 4 repeaters.

The problem with all of these is ROI, not cost.  Somewhere along the
line we've decided very short ROI's are required.  Do you work at a
company where an ROI of over a year is laughed at?  When the original
rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked about.
There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.

So it would cost $2000 per home to put in fiber.  The margin on the
service is $5 per month.  It's a 33 year ROI.  That's ok with me, it's
infrastructure, like a road, or a bridge.  We're still using copper in
the ground put in during the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpIXyo0PKndV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Aug 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100,  
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the  
average trench
mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre  
deployment

uneconomic. Now, this point can change:


This statement makes no sense to me.

The cost to dig a trench is cheaper in rural areas than it is in
urban areas.  A lot cheaper.  Rather than closing a road, cutting
a trench, avoiding 900 other obsticals, repaving, etc they can often
trench or go aerial down the side of a road for miles with no
obsticals and nothing but grass to put back.

So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
increases.


I think you meant, "decreases", here.

Marshall


 The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
may serve 20 familes.

But more puzzling to me is the idea that fiber becomes uneconomic.
This may have once been true, but right now you can buy 10km or
even 40km lasers quite cheaply.  Compare with copper which for even
modest speeds requires a repeater every 2-4km.

If you have to reach someone 20km from the CO, the cost of running
the ditch-wich down the road in a rural area is not the dominate
cost over the next 20 years.  It's equipment.  If the copper plant
takes 4 repeaters to do the job, that's 4 bits of equipment that
can fail, and will need to be upgraded at some point.  Running
something as simple as point to point fiber they can be provided
with GigE speeds today with no intermediate equipment; the cost of
a 20km GBIC is far less than the cost of installing 4 repeaters.

The problem with all of these is ROI, not cost.  Somewhere along the
line we've decided very short ROI's are required.  Do you work at a
company where an ROI of over a year is laughed at?  When the original
rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked  
about.
There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20  
years.


So it would cost $2000 per home to put in fiber.  The margin on the
service is $5 per month.  It's a 33 year ROI.  That's ok with me, it's
infrastructure, like a road, or a bridge.  We're still using copper in
the ground put in during the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

--
  Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
   PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Re: Qwest IPv6

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Kevin Brown  said:
> Does anyone have a contact at Qwest who can help us get the ball rolling 
> to implement an exchange of IPv6 traffic?  Their NOC referred us back to 
> our account manager, who said "We don't do IPv6".  A quick Google search 
> would seem to indicate otherwise...

When I asked a few months ago, the NOC gave me the "we don't do IPv6"
answer.  Looking at BGP, I only see AS 209 behind HE (with 1 prefix and
2 transit prefixes), so I would guess that's still basically the case.
-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Paul Timmins]

Leo Bicknell wrote:

If you have to reach someone 20km from the CO, the cost of running
the ditch-wich down the road in a rural area is not the dominate
cost over the next 20 years.  It's equipment.  If the copper plant
takes 4 repeaters to do the job, that's 4 bits of equipment that
can fail, and will need to be upgraded at some point.  Running
something as simple as point to point fiber they can be provided
with GigE speeds today with no intermediate equipment; the cost of
a 20km GBIC is far less than the cost of installing 4 repeaters.

The problem with all of these is ROI, not cost.  Somewhere along the
line we've decided very short ROI's are required.  Do you work at a
company where an ROI of over a year is laughed at?  When the original
rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked about.
There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.

So it would cost $2000 per home to put in fiber.  The margin on the
service is $5 per month.  It's a 33 year ROI.  That's ok with me, it's
infrastructure, like a road, or a bridge.  We're still using copper in
the ground put in during the 60's, 70's, and 80's
  
Seems like a good idea to the technical side of me, but the business 
side sees a problem: that the employees like to eat in the 33 year span 
wherein the company isn't making a dime on its customers.


-Paul

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell  said:
> When the original
> rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked about.
> There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.

How much of that was built in the last 15 years though (where now it
needs to be replaced before it has been paid for)?  In the 1990s,
BellSouth pushed hard here, rolled out fiber to the neighborhoods, and
deployed ISDN-capable equipment everywhere.  ISDN was available at every
single address in town by around 1995 (allegedly we were one of if not
the first moderate-sized city with ISDN everywhere).

Then it turned out ISDN was a flop, and DSL came along, which wouldn't
run over that nice big fiber plant.  They had to start rolling out
remote DSLAMs all over town.  Shortly after they had most of the city
covered, ADSL2 came along, and they had to start upgrading again.

Granted, the cable plant (whether copper, fiber, coax, or avian
datagram) is not quite the same, but the bean-counters look at it as "we
were supposed to have -year ROI on project 1, 2, and 3, and we
didn't get it; why should I believe we'll get it on project 4?".

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:47:01AM -0400, Paul Timmins 
wrote:
> Seems like a good idea to the technical side of me, but the business 
> side sees a problem: that the employees like to eat in the 33 year span 
> wherein the company isn't making a dime on its customers.

The last letter of ROI is Investment.  When Ford decides to build
a new car it sinks in billions of dollars over a 5 year period where
it makes nothing.  It then starts selling the new model, and finally
reaches a point where it makes a profit, and uses that to find the
next Investment.

What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
equipment.  It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
GSR over 30 years, after 10 it will be functionally obsolete.  When
it comes to equipment the idea of 1-3 year ROI's makes sense.
However, when it comes to fiber or copper in the ground or on a
pole it has a 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year life span.  To require
those assets to have a 1-3 year ROI is absurd.

I remember when Cable TV was "new".  I lived in a neighborhood
without it, and the men with ditch wiches came through and wired
the entire neighborhood.  I don't think it had an ROI of a year,
or even 5, but it has now, 30 years later, spawned a multi-billion
dollar industry and allowed us to have things like Cable Internet,
which weren't even invented at the time.  Someone loaned them the money
to do it, and it appears to me the investment performed well, overall.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpcMR9WKvgrC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Jack Bates]

Leo Bicknell wrote:

So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
increases.  The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
may serve 20 familes.


Cost per subscriber is the only cost that matters. That is what defines 
your recoup time and profit margins. BTW, in many cases it's actually 
cheaper to bore the entire way then intermix boring and trenching. And 
out here, they are heavily against you trenching right through someone's 
driveway or a road. Then there's the rivers and creeks.



But more puzzling to me is the idea that fiber becomes uneconomic.
This may have once been true, but right now you can buy 10km or
even 40km lasers quite cheaply.  Compare with copper which for even
modest speeds requires a repeater every 2-4km.


Maintenance. The reason rural companies prefer active equipment in the 
plant is because of maintenance. 20 splices to restore service to 20 
customers vs 1 splice to restore service to 20 customers. This is 
oversimplified, in reality, many of the FTTH comments in this thread 
imply bringing all customers back to the CO to keep active equipment out 
of the plant. This will tend to imply large fiber bundles leaving the CO 
and breaking down smaller and smaller as you get further from the CO. A 
large fiber cut may mean 128+ splices to restore service at 1 splice per 
customer.


In addition, it throws away all the money and investment of plant 
already in the ground from key points to the customers. I haven't seen 
an installation running repeaters for copper. More common is a remote 
system fed by a fiber ring (so when the 20km fiber is cut, service isn't 
lost while repairs are done) and the last 1.5 miles fed by copper which 
is already there.



with GigE speeds today with no intermediate equipment; the cost of
a 20km GBIC is far less than the cost of installing 4 repeaters.



If someone is setting up like this, I'd agree. More common:

Traditional POTS was often served off double ended carrier and load 
coils, which later became fiber fed integrated carrier with gr303 and 
load coils. Cheapest solution, replace carrier with DSL capable carrier, 
remove load coils when not necessary and extend from there for closer 
carriers where applicable (shorten copper loops, and removal of more 
load coils).


Here locally, we dropped over 90% of our load peds. Only the furthest 
reaches still have them and of course cannot get DSL.



There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.


Hope they have disaster insurance. A good tornado or wildfire (or 
backhoe) can do some serious damage. I had both this year in Lone Grove. 
Fun. Fun. Fiber rings to remote field equipment still gives the best 
redundancy and maintenance cost (as there is less to splice over the 
longhaul to the remote system).



service is $5 per month.  It's a 33 year ROI.  That's ok with me, it's
infrastructure, like a road, or a bridge.  We're still using copper in
the ground put in during the 60's, 70's, and 80's.


You bet. We're also using fiber and copper put in the ground yesterday. 
Copper is amazingly resilient. Most of the copper that has to be 
replaced is old aircore in the ground (which is why aircore shouldn't be 
in the ground, as it collects water and leads to shorts over long 
distances) or rehab of aircore in aerial due to bad boots that weren't 
maintained. The switch to fiber fed remote systems abandoned most of the 
problematic copper, though.



Jack

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Xaver Aerni]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Adams" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband



Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell  said:

When the original
rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked about.
There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.


How much of that was built in the last 15 years though (where now it
needs to be replaced before it has been paid for)?  In the 1990s,
BellSouth pushed hard here, rolled out fiber to the neighborhoods, and
deployed ISDN-capable equipment everywhere.  ISDN was available at every
single address in town by around 1995 (allegedly we were one of if not
the first moderate-sized city with ISDN everywhere).

Then it turned out ISDN was a flop, and DSL came along, which wouldn't
run over that nice big fiber plant.  They had to start rolling out
remote DSLAMs all over town.  Shortly after they had most of the city
covered, ADSL2 came along, and they had to start upgrading again.


I don't think ISDN was a flop.
In the middle of the 90 years. The most KMU and bigger Companies have ISDN. 
At home it was at 1997 a trend two with Internet. Ok in Europe we haven't 
till begin of the 2000 no Clip Informations on a analoge line. This will be 
come to begin of the 2000.
With ADSL and Clipinformations has the most people at home chanched back to 
an analog Line. For the companies is ISDN allready a must.


You must see. At the End of the last century the most people has a phone, 
has a fax, has a Modem... The best way was ISDN.


Now The childern are skypeing... or take an other IP Fon. Fax doesn't exist 
at home. The people has E-Mail.  And Internet we have on ADSL or VDSL. with 
many speed. For phoneing 2/3 of the people take the handy (celuar phone) or 
IP fon.

I think this is the bigest part in the last 10 years.
Greetings
Xaver

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:57:56AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> oversimplified, in reality, many of the FTTH comments in this thread 
> imply bringing all customers back to the CO to keep active equipment out 
> of the plant. This will tend to imply large fiber bundles leaving the CO 
> and breaking down smaller and smaller as you get further from the CO. A 
> large fiber cut may mean 128+ splices to restore service at 1 splice per 
> customer.

The interesting technology here of course is split optical networks.
A single fiber from the CO to a remote splice box, split to 10-100
customers.  I'm not really up on this technology, but my understanding
is that development is rapid in this space.

> Hope they have disaster insurance. A good tornado or wildfire (or 
> backhoe) can do some serious damage. I had both this year in Lone Grove. 
> Fun. Fun. Fiber rings to remote field equipment still gives the best 
> redundancy and maintenance cost (as there is less to splice over the 
> longhaul to the remote system).

I hate to say it, but this was an advantage to "Ma Bell".  Insurance
is about spreading risk out over many participants.  An alternative
strategy is to pool everything into one company! :)

My perception is that the rural telecom market is fragmented by many
smaller players, which amplifies this problem.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpUztEENs23B.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Jack Bates]

Leo Bicknell wrote:

My perception is that the rural telecom market is fragmented by many
smaller players, which amplifies this problem.



I have 12 ILEC and 1 CLEC under my umbrella. I can guarantee that not a 
single one is the same at the plant, equipment, or business level.


That being said, I think we are luckier than Bell, who has only a few 
dozen concentrated CO's in the state which feed the smaller CO's, or in 
some cases, entire towns are fed by double ended carrier (where 14.4 is 
considered the best connection one can hope for). We see unlicensed 
wireless in a lot of these places, but their customers honestly beg for 
better service.



Jack

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Alexander Harrowell]

On Thursday 27 August 2009 15:04:59 Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Alexander 
Harrowell wrote:
> > An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average
> > trench mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre
> > deployment uneconomic. Now, this point can change:
>
> This statement makes no sense to me.
>
> The cost to dig a trench is cheaper in rural areas than it is in
> urban areas.  A lot cheaper.  Rather than closing a road, cutting
> a trench, avoiding 900 other obsticals, repaving, etc they can often
> trench or go aerial down the side of a road for miles with no
> obsticals and nothing but grass to put back.
>
> So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
> increases.  The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
> trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
> may serve 20 familes.
>
> But more puzzling to me is the idea that fiber becomes uneconomic.
> This may have once been true, but right now you can buy 10km or
> even 40km lasers quite cheaply.  Compare with copper which for even
> modest speeds requires a repeater every 2-4km.
>

True. But there is - there has to be - a limit, when the 70% or so civil works 
cost eats everything else. The limit may be more or less restrictive, but 
limit there is.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Avaya (or other folks) who work with the CNA/APC (route reflector)

[Michael J McCafferty]

Coincidentally, just this morning someone at InterNAP forwarded me a
statement from Avaya that they announced End of Sale on the CNA and
Adaptive Path Controller as of Nov 2 2009, and End of Support as of Nov
2 2010.

I'll forward you the InterNAP guy's info off-list.


On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 08:02 -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> All of my contacts within Avaya who work with the CNA/APC system have 
> seemingly vanished, does anyone on the list have any contacts in Avaya which 
> still know about the existence of this product?
> 
> Also, does anyone have any contact information for someone at Internap who 
> has sales information about the FCP product?
> 
> thanks,
> -Drew
> 
-- 

Michael J. McCafferty
Principal, Security Engineer
M5 Hosting
http://www.m5hosting.com

You can have your own custom Dedicated Server up and running today !
RedHat Enterprise, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and more

RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Frank Bulk - iName.com]

As one of the workshops discussed, does the definition of "underserved" and
"unserved" include the clause "for a reasonable price"?  

If the price is unreasonable, do you think its government money well-spent
to subsidize bringing a competitor to a market that couldn't make it before?
Or are there perhaps other ways to deal with that pricing issue?

Frank

-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband



Really where they need the swift kick in the tail is in the product
tying where you can't buy a high speed connection to J. Random ISP,
you can only buy a high speed connection to monopoly provider's
in-house ISP. Which means you can only get commodity service since
monopoly provider isn't in the business of providing low-dollar custom
solutions. But it sounds like that's outside the scope of what
Congress has approved.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Frank Bulk - iName.com]

Estimates to bring FTTH to all of America is in the $100 to $300B range.

So yes, the $7.2B is a drop in the bucket.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Sean Donelan [mailto:s...@donelan.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband
implies 
> fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy
- 
> infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could 
> pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment
of 
> DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a
leap 
> forward, not just waste it.

Broadband stimulus money = $7,200,000,000

Housing units in USA (2000) = 115,904,641

Stimulus money per housing unit = $62.12 one-time

What definition of "broadband" can you achieve for that amount of money?

Or for rural housing units (2000) = 25,938,698

Stimulus money per rural housing unit = $277.58 one-time

What definition of "broadband" can you achieve for that amount of money 
in a rural build-out?

How much will fiber to the home cost in a rural area?

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Richard Bennett]

The background issue is whether satellite-based systems at around 200 
Kb/s and high latency can be defined as "broadband." Since everyone in 
America - including the Alaskans - has access to satellite services, 
defining that level of service as broadband makes the rest of the 
exercise academic: everyone is "served." There's no economic argument 
for government subsidies to multiple firms in a market, of course.


It's more interesting considering that DirecTV is about to launch a new 
satellite with a couple orders of magnitude more capacity than the 
existing ones offer. I seem to recall their claiming that the service 
would then improved to some respectable number of megabits/sec. 
Satellite ISPs locate their ground stations in IXP-friendly locations, 
so there aren't any worries about backhaul or fiber access costs.


But to your actual question, "under-served" is of course quite 
subjective and cost is clearly part of it.


RB

Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:

As one of the workshops discussed, does the definition of "underserved" and
"unserved" include the clause "for a reasonable price"?  


If the price is unreasonable, do you think its government money well-spent
to subsidize bringing a competitor to a market that couldn't make it before?
Or are there perhaps other ways to deal with that pricing issue?

Frank

-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:46 PM

To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband



Really where they need the swift kick in the tail is in the product
tying where you can't buy a high speed connection to J. Random ISP,
you can only buy a high speed connection to monopoly provider's
in-house ISP. Which means you can only get commodity service since
monopoly provider isn't in the business of providing low-dollar custom
solutions. But it sounds like that's outside the scope of what
Congress has approved.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

  


--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[JC Dill]

Leo Bicknell wrote:

What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
equipment.  It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
GSR over 30 years, after 10 it will be functionally obsolete.  When
it comes to equipment the idea of 1-3 year ROI's makes sense.
However, when it comes to fiber or copper in the ground or on a
pole it has a 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year life span.  To require
those assets to have a 1-3 year ROI is absurd.


What happens if we have improvements in data transmission systems such 
that whatever we put in now is obsolete in 15 years?


What happens if we put in billions of dollars of fiber, only to have 
fiber (and copper) obsolete as we roll out faster and faster wireless 
solutions?


IMHO the biggest obstacle to defining broadband is figuring out how to 
describe how it is used in a way that prevents an ILEC from installing 
it so that only the ILEC can use it.  If the customer doesn't have at 
least 3 broadband choices, there's no real choice, and pricing will be 
artificially high and service options will be stagnant and few.  Look at 
what happened to long distance rates and telephone services once Ma Bell 
was broken up and businesses started competing for customers.  I 
remember when we paid more than $35 a month for long distance fees alone 
(and about that much more for our basic service, including phone 
"rental") when I was a teenager in the 1970s.  Without competition, with 
inflation, that same long distance bill would easily be over $100/month 
today.  Yest today, more than 30 years later you can get a cell phone 
with unlimited minutes, unlimited domestic long distance, for $35/month 
(e.g Metro PCS).


Let's not make this mistake again and let the ILECs use TARP funds to 
build "broadband" to the curb/home that only they get to use to provide 
internet services to the customers.


jc

RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[Carlos Alcantar]

That's why I believe all the major lecs are refusing to submit for funds
due to all the red tape that comes with that money.  Eg.
(Nondiscrimination and interconnection obligation) they are really
pushing network openness something I don't think the lecs want to do
with their fiber plant.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Telecommunications, Inc.
101 Haskins Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P: 650.649.3550 x143
F: 650.649.3551



-Original Message-
From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill.li...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:51 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

Leo Bicknell wrote:
> What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
> equipment.  It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
> GSR over 30 years, after 10 it will be functionally obsolete.  When
> it comes to equipment the idea of 1-3 year ROI's makes sense.
> However, when it comes to fiber or copper in the ground or on a
> pole it has a 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year life span.  To require
> those assets to have a 1-3 year ROI is absurd.

What happens if we have improvements in data transmission systems such 
that whatever we put in now is obsolete in 15 years?

What happens if we put in billions of dollars of fiber, only to have 
fiber (and copper) obsolete as we roll out faster and faster wireless 
solutions?

IMHO the biggest obstacle to defining broadband is figuring out how to 
describe how it is used in a way that prevents an ILEC from installing 
it so that only the ILEC can use it.  If the customer doesn't have at 
least 3 broadband choices, there's no real choice, and pricing will be 
artificially high and service options will be stagnant and few.  Look at

what happened to long distance rates and telephone services once Ma Bell

was broken up and businesses started competing for customers.  I 
remember when we paid more than $35 a month for long distance fees alone

(and about that much more for our basic service, including phone 
"rental") when I was a teenager in the 1970s.  Without competition, with

inflation, that same long distance bill would easily be over $100/month 
today.  Yest today, more than 30 years later you can get a cell phone 
with unlimited minutes, unlimited domestic long distance, for $35/month 
(e.g Metro PCS).

Let's not make this mistake again and let the ILECs use TARP funds to 
build "broadband" to the curb/home that only they get to use to provide 
internet services to the customers.

jc

Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

[James Downs]

On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Roy wrote:

I think it has become obvious that the correct definition of  
broadband depends on the users location.  A house in the boonies is  
not going to get fiber,  Perhaps the minimum acceptable bandwidth  
should vary by area.  A definition of "area" could be some sort of  
user density


Except this is exactly what happened.  The players with vested  
interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects.  In  
areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects.   
So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but  
there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying  
around.  I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial  
airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has.


-j