Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes 
that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider 
rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, 
from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back 
to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide 
a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider 
in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely 
translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.

- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin" 
To: "Jay Ashworth" 
Cc: "NANOG" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" 
>
>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
>> offering. Wholesale only.
>>
>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
>> network.

As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
taxpayers.


> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
> subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
> my municipality?

Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the 
ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market 
the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly 
play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business 
community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens.

- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kristolaitis" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.   
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance 
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer 
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to 
everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but 
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept 
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is 
available.

- Pete


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
> I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
> services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
> Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
> the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
> would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
> until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
> reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
> brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
> without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
> pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director 
> believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 
> provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The 
> reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services 
> will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the 
> first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is 
> currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive 
> service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin" 
> To: "Jay Ashworth" 
> Cc: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" 
>>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
>>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
>>> offering. Wholesale only.
>>>
>>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
>>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
>>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
>>> network.
> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
> taxpayers.
>
>
>> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
>> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
>> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
>> subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
>> my municipality?
> Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
> returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
> the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
> customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
> had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. 
Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also 
the local electric utility. 

- Original Message -

From: "Scott Helms"  
To: "Art Plato"  
Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM 
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 


I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its 
non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator 
concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't 
consider it important/viable. 


Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not 
impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the 
FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS 
panel that's not a multi-tenant system. 



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato < apl...@coldwater.org > wrote: 


That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the 
ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market 
the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly 
play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business 
community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. 

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Kristolaitis" < alte...@alter3d.ca > 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM 
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. 
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance 
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer 
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to 
everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but 
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept 
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is 
available. 

- Pete 


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: 
> I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing 
> services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with 
> Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When 
> the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they 
> would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, 
> until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is 
> reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big 
> brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information 
> without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are 
> pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director 
> believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 
> provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The 
> reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services 
> will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the 
> first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is 
> currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive 
> service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "William Herrin" < b...@herrin.us > 
> To: "Jay Ashworth" < j...@baylink.com > 
> Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM 
> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth < j...@baylink.com > wrote: 
>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" < jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca > 
>>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or 
>>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail 
>>> offering. Wholesale only. 
>>> 
>>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not 
>>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many 
>>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile 
>>> network. 
> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at 
> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue 
> for s

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

[Art Plato]

Scott,
Thanks for the warning. I am planning on having those dialogues with any 
potential vendors, as well as ask them for active references.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: "Scott Helms" 
To: "Art Plato" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:54:06 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

Art,

In that case its even harder.  Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying.  Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato  wrote:
> I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild.
> Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also
> the local electric utility.
>
> ________
> From: "Scott Helms" 
> To: "Art Plato" 
> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
>
> I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its
> non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator
> concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups
> don't consider it important/viable.
>
> Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though
> not impossible, because of how provisioning works.   Making it work in many
> of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single
> NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato  wrote:
>>
>> That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with
>> the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive
>> market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old
>> monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of
>> our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our
>> citizens.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Peter Kristolaitis" 
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your
>> yard?
>>
>> There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.
>> Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance
>> & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer
>> of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to
>> everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2
>> services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but
>> it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept
>> from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is
>> available.
>>
>> - Pete
>>
>>
>> On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
>> > I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing
>> > services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with
>> > Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative.
>> > When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear
>> > that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town
>> > this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service
>> > that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't
>> > play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No
>> > information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all
>> > that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My
>> > director believes that we would better serve our community by being the
>> > layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in
>> > principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities
>> > providing the services will fall back to the original position that 
>> > prompted
>> > us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum
>> > price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to
>> > provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our
>> > constituents would lose. IMHO.
>&

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Art Plato]

Although not technically private, this is where we see ourselves getting to if 
a good competitive environment fosters from the construction of the 
infrastructure. Again, we can't abandon our citizens to a one provider 
monopoly, but if a true competitive environment arose we would be quite content 
to sell last mile at a set price to anyone that wanted to provide services 
across that last mile and use those funds to maintain and upgrade said 
infrastructure as required going forward.

- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong" 
To: "Jason Baugher" 
Cc: "NANOG" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:49:38 PM
Subject: Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth


On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher  wrote:

> There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
> into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
> termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads, etc...
> Someone earlier mentioned being able to have millions of fibers coming
> through a vault, which is true assuming they are just passing through the
> vault. When you need to break into one of those 864-fiber cables, the room
> for splice cases suddenly becomes a problem.
> 
> The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
> assumption by most that a government entity would do a good job as a
> layer-1 or -2 provider and would be more efficient than a private company.
> Governments, including municipalities, are notorious for corruption, fraud,
> waste - you name it. Even when government bids out projects to the private
> sector these problems are seen.

I now this is a popular refrain, but in reality, it's not all that accurate.

I have no problem with allowing L1/L2 to be done by private enterprise, so
long as said private enterprises are required to abide by the following rules:

1.  They are not allowed to sell L3+ services.
2.  They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider.
3.  They must sell their L1/L2 services to any L3+ service provider on
equal terms.

Owen

Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

[Art Plato]

How about buy the movies in question, convert them to MP4, install a media 
server on a local box and configure Xbox, tablet, smart-phone, whatever to 
access the media server? That is how my 3 year old grandson watches the Bubble 
Guppies movie umpteen million times during a 4 day stay. Just a thought. Oh, it 
also affords my wife and I the luxury of having our entire movie collection 
available for on demand viewing. No searching through cases or disc binders. 
Just a thought.

- Original Message -
From: "fredrik danerklint" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 2:58:42 PM
Subject: Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

>>> "allow my customers as an ISP to cache the content at their home".
>>>
>>> Do you *mean* "their home" -- an end-user residence?
>>
>> Yes, I do *mean* that.
>>
>> As in you, Jay, should be allowed to run your own cache server in your
>> home (Traffic Server is the one that I'm using in the TLMC concept).
>>
>> Wouldn't you like that?
>
> It would do little good; my hit rate on such a cache would be unlikely to
> be high enough to merit the traffic to keep it charged.

(Children watching a movie only once? Not a chance. It's more like 
unlimited number of times and then some more...).

So don't set-up an cache server at your home/residence.

-- 
//fredan

Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

[Art Plato]

Brian,
How complex is the troubleshooting side of the Adtran? We Use the Enablence 
Wave7 and getting any useful information from the CPE via the CLI is like 
pulling hens teeth. I have yet to see a way to view the actual throughput on 
the ethernet interfaces, only total bits passed, or the light levels at the CPE 
fiber interface. A bit annoying actually. It means a truck roll to get light 
levels at the CPE.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: "Brian R" 
To: "Eric Rogers" , "Jay Patel" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:25:44 PM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

We use the Adtran ONT solutions.  We are using AE (Active Ethernet) not GPON 
but the solutions are similar for Adtran.  We are providing IP and Analog this 
way.  If used in the specified scope only there have been very little problems. 
 Adtran is constantly updating their firmware, this can be a positive and 
negative at times.  LoL

The configuration is Adtran TA5000 with an Active Ethernet 24-Port Module 
(1187562F1) feeding an ONT TA324E (1287737G2) at the customer premise.
For power we are using the Cyber Power CSN27U12v-NA3 units.
The clam shell we are using to put the ONT in is TA350 ONT NID HSG SPLICE 
(1187770G1)
All of these part numbers should be available on Adtrans website to look up.

We are also testing some iPhotonix ONTs but have not gotten to the point we are 
sure we want to deploy them.

Brian

PS I will post this in voiceops as well (it may be more relevant there)


From: NANOG  on behalf of Eric Rogers 

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Jay Patel; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Favorite GPON Vendor?

I Personally would like to know as well.  We are just getting into GPON and the 
equipment we have been evaluating is clunky at best... It came highly 
recommended and supposed to be stable.

Eric Rogers
PDS Connect
www.pdsconnect.me
(317) 831-3000 x200


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Patel
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Favorite GPON Vendor?

Who is your favorite GPON  OLT/ONU Vendor? Why?   I am looking for
recommendations

I apologize in advance , if you feel my question is inappropriate for this 
mailing list ( feel free to point me to right forum/mailing list).

Regards,
Jay.

Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

[Art Plato]

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback Brian. Price is important, but not the be all 
of the consideration process. Troubleshooting ease matters just as much.

- Original Message -
From: "Shawn L" 
To: "nanog" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:27:46 AM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?


We like Calix's gpon gear, especially the E7 series.  Though it's on the higher 
side price-wise than others.  Manageable through their CMS software, the web, 
or command line.  We tend to use their CMS software for most things, but the 
CLI is decent, and gives you access to anything you'd want.
 

-----Original Message-
From: "Art Plato" 
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:38pm
To: 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?



Brian,
How complex is the troubleshooting side of the Adtran? We Use the Enablence 
Wave7 and getting any useful information from the CPE via the CLI is like 
pulling hens teeth. I have yet to see a way to view the actual throughput on 
the ethernet interfaces, only total bits passed, or the light levels at the CPE 
fiber interface. A bit annoying actually. It means a truck roll to get light 
levels at the CPE.

Art.

- Original Message -
From: "Brian R" 
To: "Eric Rogers" , "Jay Patel" 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 2:25:44 PM
Subject: Re: Favorite GPON Vendor?

We use the Adtran ONT solutions. We are using AE (Active Ethernet) not GPON but 
the solutions are similar for Adtran. We are providing IP and Analog this way. 
If used in the specified scope only there have been very little problems. 
Adtran is constantly updating their firmware, this can be a positive and 
negative at times. LoL

The configuration is Adtran TA5000 with an Active Ethernet 24-Port Module 
(1187562F1) feeding an ONT TA324E (1287737G2) at the customer premise.
For power we are using the Cyber Power CSN27U12v-NA3 units.
The clam shell we are using to put the ONT in is TA350 ONT NID HSG SPLICE 
(1187770G1)
All of these part numbers should be available on Adtrans website to look up.

We are also testing some iPhotonix ONTs but have not gotten to the point we are 
sure we want to deploy them.

Brian

PS I will post this in voiceops as well (it may be more relevant there)


From: NANOG  on behalf of Eric Rogers 

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Jay Patel; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Favorite GPON Vendor?

I Personally would like to know as well. We are just getting into GPON and the 
equipment we have been evaluating is clunky at best... It came highly 
recommended and supposed to be stable.

Eric Rogers
PDS Connect
www.pdsconnect.me
(317) 831-3000 x200


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Patel
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Favorite GPON Vendor?

Who is your favorite GPON OLT/ONU Vendor? Why? I am looking for
recommendations

I apologize in advance , if you feel my question is inappropriate for this 
mailing list ( feel free to point me to right forum/mailing list).

Regards,
Jay.

Re: Cable Operator List

[Art Plato]

Don't believe they have a mailing list, but this is a good source for technical 
issues on the modem/cmts side. Very helpful forum. Pulled me out of the weeds a 
couple of times. www.docsis.org.


- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Hatton" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 8:53:36 AM
Subject: Re: Cable Operator List

The Cable TV List (http://cabletvlist.com/) doesn't get much traffic, but
it does have some quality people on it that can answer most CATV
questions.  It is heavily weighted on the TV side, so most things are
related to transport gear, IRDs, and distribution equipment.  I am unaware
of any DOCSIS specific mailing lists, but if anyone out there does know of
one I would like to know about it as well.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Daniel Corbe  wrote:

>
> > On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Colton Conor  wrote:
> >
> > Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated for cable/MSO type
> > operators?
> >
>
> I'm curious about this too.
>
> I’m not a cable operator (in that I haven’t successfully registered for a
> cable franchise yet) but I do operate a docsis network and I’ve
> successfully negotiated the treacherous waters of obtaining and providing
> content to my users.
>
> I’m still a bit green behind the ears but I could probably offer some
> measure of assistance if you have a specific question.
>
> -Daniel
>
>


-- 

*Ben Hatton*

Network Engineer

Haefele TV Inc.

bhat...@htva.net

www.htva.net