Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
Sunday Night Football at the top last week, with 7.1% of US homes watching. That's over 23 times as many folks watching as the 0.3% in our previous math! Ok, 23 times 150Gbps. 3.45Tb/s. Yowzer. That's a lot of data. 345 10GE ports for a SINGLE TV show. But that's 7.1% of homes, so scale up to 100% of homes and you get 48Tb/sec, that's right 4830 simultaneous 10GE's if all of Comcast's existing high speed subs dropped cable and watched the same shows over the Internet. I think we all know that streaming video is large. Putting the real numbers to it shows the real engineering challenges on both sides, generating and sinking the content, and why comapnies are fighting so much over it. Anything that is "live" & likely to be watched by lots of people at the same time like sports can handled via multicast. The IPTV guys have had a number of years to get that work fairly well in telco environments. The content that can't be handled with multicast, like on demand programming, is where you lose your economy of scale. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
Can you share any references on this? Everything I've seen has been typical lawyer double speak, i.e. the opposite of clear. On 12/14/2010 5:38 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content providers should be paying them for access to their customers. I've seen them repeatedly state that they feel networks who send them too much traffic are "abusing their network". -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
Few home users have a stateful firewall configured and AFAIK none of the consumer models come with a good default set of rules much less a drop all unknown. For end users NAT is and will likely to continue to be the most significant and effective front line security they have. Home router manufacturers have very limited budgets for training or support for home end users so the approach is likely to remain the least expensive thing that produces the fewest inbound support calls. If the question is whether NAT was designed to be a security level then I agree your stance and I'd also agree that correctly configured firewalls do a better job at security. Where I disagree is your position that there is no extra security inherent in the default NAT behavior. Until someone makes an effort to create either a DMZ entry or starts doing port forwarding all (AFAIK) of the common routers will drop packets that they don't know where to forward them. Is this a tenuous and accidental security level based on current defaults in cheap gear? Of course, but given how normal users behave until routers can automagically configure firewall settings in a safe (i.e. not UPNP) manner I don't see things changing. On 1/12/2011 2:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: No, NAT doesn't provide additional security. The stateful inspection that NAT cannot operate without provides the security. Take away the address mangling and the stateful inspection still provides the same level of security. There is a least one situation where NAT *does* provide a small amount of necessary security. Try this at home, with/without NAT: 1. Buy a new PC with Windows installed 2. Install all security patches needed since the OS was installed Without NAT, you're unpatched PC will get infected in less than 1 minute. Wrong. Repeat the experiment with stateful firewall with default inbound deny and no NAT. Yep... Same results as NAT. NAT != security. Stateful inspection = some security. Next!! Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
No it really doesn't. Thank you for leaving the key word when you quoted me (configured). The difference is the _default_ behavior of the two. NAT by _default_ drops packets it doesn't have a mapped PAT translation for. Home firewalls do not _default_ to dropping all packets they don't have a rule to explicitly allow. The behaviors when configured by someone knowledgeable behave the in a similar fashion (allowing packets that are configured to pass and dropping all others) but end users don't do that as a rule. On 1/12/2011 3:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Scott Helms said: Few home users have a stateful firewall configured Yes, they do. NAT requires a stateful firewall. Why is that so hard to understand? -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
Miquel, Almost no home users have an IPv6 connection currently and the ones that do are the extreme outliers. IPv6 gear (depending on the deployment method) will hopefully handle this well, but no I haven't seen any that did a default drop all. In truth most of the CPE I've seen don't even run v6 well even if their marketing claims otherwise. However, v6 is an entirely different generation of gear that will _hopefully_ get things right since they will _hopefully_ avoid NAT. Having said that so far the smoothest (from an end user perspective) way of moving forward is often 4 to 6 in the home and I expect that to be dirt common for very long time in the future. On 1/12/2011 3:37 PM, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: In article, Scott Helms wrote: Few home users have a stateful firewall configured and AFAIK none of the consumer models come with a good default set of rules much less a drop all unknown. The v6 capable CPEs for home users I've seen so far all include stateful firewalling with inbound default deny. (including the one I'm using right now) Is your experience with such CPEs any different ? Mike. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
That's simply not true. Every end user running NAT is running a stateful firewall with a default inbound deny. Really? I just tested this with 8 different router models from 5 different manufacturers and in all cases the default behavior was the same. Put a public IP on a PC behind the router, tell the router how to connect (DHCP in this case), and leaving everything else as default meant that all traffic to the public IP was allowed through unless I configured rules. One of the Netgear models (IIRC) did block ICMP but any TCP or UDP traffic was allowed through. Now, this certainly isn't an exhaustive test, but it tested the devices we needed checked. If someone knows of a model that does block incoming (non-established TCP) traffic by default I'd like to know about it. That's especially true of combo DSL modem routers. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: FTTH ONTs and routers
Jean-Francois, I've seen it done both ways, and _usually_ newer ONTs will have the capacity even if its not used. Having said that there is no real standardization between vendors other than the physical layer (and even that's not great) so what's common for one vendor may well be unheard of for another. Making generalizations about G/EPON gear is very hard right now and its worse for the older standards like BPON. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems, > came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice). > > The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been > challenged. > > Can anyone confirm whether ONTs generally have routing (aka: home router > that does the PPPoE or DHCP and then NAT for home) capabilities? > > Are there examples where a telco has deployed ONTs with the router > built-in and enabled ? Or would almost all FTTH deployments be made with > any routing disabled and the ONT acting as a pure ethernet bridge ? > > > (I appreciate your help on this as I am time constrained to do research). > >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators will sell more than a few (perhaps just one) top priority in a given a category. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: > > On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> > >> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane" > >> > > > > I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog > has > > included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no > 'fast > > lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_ applied to > > existing traffic. > > > > please correct me if I'm wrong, but 'fast lane' really is (in this > example): > 'cableco' port from 'moviecompany' has 'qos' marking configuration > to set all 'moviecompany' traffic (from this port!) to some priority > level. > > customer-port to 'cableco' has 'qos' handling/queuing that will > ensure '5mbps' of 'moviecompany' is always going to get down the link > to the customer, regardless of the other traffic the customer is > requesting. > > right? (presume that in the rest of the 'cableco' network is > protecting 'moviecompany' traffic as well, of course) > > So, when there are 1 'moviecompany' things to prioritize and deliver > that's cool... but what about when there are 10? 100? 1000? doesn't > the queuing get complicated? what if the 'cableco' customer with > 10mbps link has 3 people in the location all streaming from 3 > different 'moviecompany' organizations which have paid for 'fastlane' > services? > > 3 x 5 == 15 ... not 10. How will 'cableco' manage this when their > 100gbps inter-metro links are seeing +100gbps if 'fastlane' traffic > and 'fastlane' traffic can't make it to the local metro from the > remote one? > > This all seems much, much more complicated and expensive than just > building out networking, which they will have to do in the end anyway, > right? Only with 'fastlanes' there's extra capacity management and > configuration and testing and ... all on top of: "Gosh, does the new > umnptyfart card from routerco actually work in old routerco routers?" > > This looks, to me, like nuttiness... like mutually assured destruction > that the cableco folk are driving both parties into intentionally. > > -chris > > BTW: I didn't use a particular 'cable company' name for 'cableco', nor > did I use a particular streaming media company for 'moviecompany'... > Also, 'cableco' is short-hand for > 'lastmile-consumer-provider-network'. Less typing was better, for me, > I thought. >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Chris, You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization isn't that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity already since everything is the same priority right now. You're trying to make the statement that giving multiple content providers priority somehow makes connectivity unworkable for consumers as if we don't have this problem already. Consumers can easily starve themselves of bandwidth with video or any other content and almost no connections in the US have any sort of intelligent fair usage buffering provided by the service provider. This is true for both cable, telco, and other operators. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of > > 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the > day > > the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on > service > > flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators > > will sell more than a few (perhaps just one) top priority in a given a > > category. > > > > yes, there will only ever be 5 computers. or you couldn't possibly > need more than 640kb of ram. or more than 4billion 'ip addresses'. > > I don't think you have to get to more than 10 or 20 of the stated > examples before things get dicey ... Once a set of customers > experience (and can measure) the effect, they'll back their complaints > up to 'moviecompany' and some set of contract penalties will kick in, > I suspect. > > Sure, if there is only one it's not a problem, but there are already > not just one... > > > > > Scott Helms > > Vice President of Technology > > ZCorum > > (678) 507-5000 > > > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Christopher Morrow > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: > >> > On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane" > >> >> > >> > > >> > I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog > >> > has > >> > included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no > >> > 'fast > >> > lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_ applied > >> > to > >> > existing traffic. > >> > > >> > >> please correct me if I'm wrong, but 'fast lane' really is (in this > >> example): > >> 'cableco' port from 'moviecompany' has 'qos' marking configuration > >> to set all 'moviecompany' traffic (from this port!) to some priority > >> level. > >> > >> customer-port to 'cableco' has 'qos' handling/queuing that will > >> ensure '5mbps' of 'moviecompany' is always going to get down the link > >> to the customer, regardless of the other traffic the customer is > >> requesting. > >> > >> right? (presume that in the rest of the 'cableco' network is > >> protecting 'moviecompany' traffic as well, of course) > >> > >> So, when there are 1 'moviecompany' things to prioritize and deliver > >> that's cool... but what about when there are 10? 100? 1000? doesn't > >> the queuing get complicated? what if the 'cableco' customer with > >> 10mbps link has 3 people in the location all streaming from 3 > >> different 'moviecompany' organizations which have paid for 'fastlane' > >> services? > >> > >> 3 x 5 == 15 ... not 10. How will 'cableco' manage this when their > >> 100gbps inter-metro links are seeing +100gbps if 'fastlane' traffic > >> and 'fastlane' traffic can't make it to the local metro from the > >> remote one? > >> > >> This all seems much, much more complicated and expensive than just > >> building out networking, which they will have to do in the end anyway, > >> right? Only with 'fastlanes' there's extra capacity management and > >> configuration and testing and ... all on top of: "Gosh, does the new > >> umnptyfart card from routerco actually work in old routerco routers?" > >> > >> This looks, to me, like nuttiness... like mutually assured destruction > >> that the cableco folk are driving both parties into intentionally. > >> > >> -chris > >> > >> BTW: I didn't use a particular 'cable company' name for 'cableco', nor > >> did I use a particular streaming media company for 'moviecompany'... > >> Also, 'cableco' is short-hand for > >> 'lastmile-consumer-provider-network'. Less typing was better, for me, > >> I thought. > > > > >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, "mass amounts of data" from Level 3 (Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer agreement spell out, in every example I've seen, realistic terms and expectations for service and those are very different from peering arrangements. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your > customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot > maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that > access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass > amounts of data in clear violation of standard expectations for > balanced peering agreements. > > Oh... you meant something else? > > -Blake > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Livingood, Jason > wrote: > > On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" n...@pelagiris.org>> wrote: > > > > By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow > us to refuse to upgrade full peers"? > > > > Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to > constrain it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants to go from a balanced > relationship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the > relationship? Should we just unquestionably toss out our published policy – > which is consistent with other networks – and ignore expectations for other > peers? > > > > Jason >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain > balanced y= > > ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where > do= > > es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then? > > It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone? > You could certainly say its ridiculous, but it is (and has been) the basis for almost all peering arrangements in North America for several decades in my personal experience. I believe that the practice came from the telco world when large telephone companies would exchange traffic without billing each other so long as the traffic was relatively balanced. You can imagine AT&T and Sprint exchange toll traffic and so long as things we're fairly close there wasn't a big imbalance of traffic to worry the financial folks over and thus having to do exact accounting on each minute, which was technically challenging 30 years ago. "Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big > thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network > and cause our traffic to become lopsided." > > Wow. Is that what you're saying? > That's not what happened. What happened is that Netflix went to Level 3 who already had a peering arrangement with Comcast which was built around normal (roughly) balanced peering. It had been in place for years before Netflix signed with Level 3 and worked, and was contracted this way, around relatively balanced traffic. Once Netflix started sending most of their traffic destined to Comcast end user through Level 3 things got out of balance. Netflix still has a contract with Cogent (I believe that is the correct one) or other provider that had previously been handling the bulk of the Comcast directed traffic, but the Level 3 connection was cheaper for Netflix. If anyone actually acted in bad faith it was, IMO, Level 3. > > > To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to > sw= > > itch off who uses it every other day, can I just say "forget our > agreement = > > =96 I=92m just going to drive the car myself every single day =96 its > all m= > > ine=94? > > Seems like a poor analogy since I'm pretty sure both parties on a peering > can use the port at the same time. > His point was you can't simply change a contract without having both parties involved. Level 3 tried to do just that. > > ... JG > -- > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] > then I > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail > spam(CNN) > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many > apples. >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan, parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > customers. 2. This is because when they built their > > business models, they didn’t expect their customers to > > use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they > > are now using. Most of the models were constructed > > around the idea that a customer receiving, say 27mbps > > down/7mbps up would use all of that bandwidth in short > > bursts and mostly use less than a megabit. > > And in general, models have assumed, for a long time, that > customer demand patterns are largely asymmetric. > > While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball > networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social > media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), > putting even more demand on the network, and making the gist > of this thread an even bigger issue, if you discount the > fact, of course, that Broadband in the U.S. currently sucks > for a developed market. > > Mark. >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much traffic per session. "During peak period, Real-Time Entertainment traffic is by far the most dominant traffic category, accounting for almost half of the downstream bytes on the network. As observed in past reports, Social Networking applications continue to be very well represented on the mobile network. This speaks to their popularity with subscribers as these applications typically generate far less traffic than those that stream audio and video." https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2013/sandvine-global-internet-phenomena-report-1h-2013.pdf Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote: > > > Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic > > here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers > > here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and > > population density, in comparison to places like Japan, > > parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South > > Korea. > > It might not be (now), but if symmetrical bandwidth will go > in on the back of teenagers wanting to upload videos about > their lives, the meer fact that the bandwidth is there means > someone will find bigger and better use for it, than social > media. > > We saw this when we deployed FTTH in Malaysia, back in '09. > > Mark. >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including large PDFs and Power Point presentations. Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage & management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: > >> - Original Message - >> >>> From: "Mark Tinka" >>> While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball >>> networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social >>> media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), >>> putting even more demand on the network, >>> >> Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. >> >> :-) >> >> Could you expand a bit, Mark on "Social media forces the use of symmetric >> bandwidth"? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) >> symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> > Applications like Skype and Facetime (especially conference calls) would > be one example where an application benefits from symmetric (or asymmetric > in favor of higher upload speed) connectivity. Cloud office applications > like storage of documents, email, and IVR telephony also benefit from > symmetrical connectivity. Off-site backup software is another great > example. Most residential connections are ill suited for this. I believe > these applications (and derivatives) would be more popular today if the > connectivity was available. > > --Blake >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is much more of a problem than available bandwidth. 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of services like DropBox. 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. I just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major MSOs for a normal residential package. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I > don't deny that a < 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes less > bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access to > symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they > don't, in my experience), we might be seeing video calls as a common > occurrence and not a novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on > the technology available. > > If the capability was available at an affordable price to residential > consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies or send videos from > their home or mobile devices via their internet connection directly to the > recipient rather than through a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, > Youtube, etc. Video sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason > for existence is due to the inability of the site's users to distribute > content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in video sharing is the > lack of availability in affordable internet connectivity that is capable of > sending video at reasonable (greater than real time) speeds. > > --Blake > > Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 11:02 AM: > >> Blake, >> >> None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic >> patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly >> improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even >> if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data >> is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential >> account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including >> large PDFs and Power Point presentations. >> >> Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe >> that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that >> business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential >> and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage & >> management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer >> side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups >> run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became >> wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is >> both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Blake Hudson > bl...@ispn.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Mark Tinka" > <mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>> >> While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball >> networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social >> media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), >> putting even more demand on the network, >> >> Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. >> >> :-) >> >> Could you expand a bit, Mark on "Social media forces the use >> of symmetric >> bandwidth"? Which social media platform is it that
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. This kind of question has been asked of operators since long before cable companies could offer internet service. What happens if everyone in an area use their telephone (cellular or land line) at the same time? A fast busy or recorded "All circuits are busy message." Over subscription is a fact of economics in virtually everything we do. By this logic restaurants should be massively over built so that there is never a waiting line, highways should always be a speed limit ride, and all of these things would cost much more money than they do today. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the >> popularity of OTT video. >> > > Until my other half decides to upload a video. > > Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever > direction happens > to be needed at the moment? > > Mike >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that way to start. We also don't see consumer demand for symmetrical connections and with the decline in peer to peer file sharing we've actually seen a decrease the ratio of used upstream bandwidth (though not a decrease in absolute terms). I would like to deliver symmetrical bandwidth to all consumers just so those few customers who need it today would have lower bills but trying to justify that to our CFO without being able to point to an increase in revenue either because of more revenue per sub or more subs is a very tough task. I don't believe my situation is uncommon. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of > view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me). While > I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one could argue > each of the points you've made below. > > I do feel that general usage patterns are a reflection of the technologies > that have traditionally been available to consumers. New uses and > applications would be available to overcome hurdles if the technologies had > developed to be symmetrical. I'm not saying that the asymmetrical choice > was a bad one, but it was not without consequences. If residential ISPs > sell asymmetric connections for decades, how can the ISP expect that > application developers would not take this into account when developing > applications? I don't think my application would be very successful if it > required X Mbps and half of my market did not meet this requirement. Of > course content/service providers are going to tailor their services based > around their market. > > --Blake > > Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 12:06 PM: > >> Blake, >> >> I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. >> >> 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. >> >> 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it >> themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to >> entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is >> much more of a problem than available bandwidth. >> >> 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with >> sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was >> created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of >> services like DropBox. >> >> 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. I >> just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my >> residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major MSOs >> for a normal residential package. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Blake Hudson > bl...@ispn.net>> wrote: >> >> Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive >> applications. I don't deny that a < 1 Mbps video call is both less >> common and consumes less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. >> However, if Americans had access to symmetric connections capable >> of reliably making HD video calls (they don't, in my experience), >> we might be seeing video calls as a common occurrence and not a >> novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on the >> technology available. >> >> If the capability was available at an affordable price to >> residential consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies >> or send videos from their home or mobile devices via their >> internet connection directly to the recipient rather than through >> a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, Youtube, etc. Video >> sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason for >> existence is due to the inability of the site's users to >> distribute content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in >> video sharing
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Lazlo, You're correct that some applications are being restricted, but AFAIK in North America they are all being restricted for quite valid network management reasons. While back in the day I ran Sendmail and sometimes qmail on my home connection I was also responsible with my mail server and more importantly the world was different. The threat from an open relay or mail server with a compromise is much higher, in part because the speeds are higher, but also because the attackers are more sophisticated and the hardware the mail server is running on is much more powerful. P2P is _not_ being blocked legally anywhere and if you believe that it is then you should complain to the FCC in the US or the CRTC in Canada. Running a DNS or NTP server that's open to the Internet on a home connection should NOT be allowed. I'm sorry if you're one of the few people who can run those services effectively and safely (just like SMTP) but the vast majority of customers can't and in most cases they aren't running them intentionally. I won't get into marketing, that's not what I do and I agree that unlimited seems to mean something other than the way I understand it but that's no different from unlimited telephone service, all you can eat buffets, or just about anywhere else you can see the word "unlimited" or all in marketing. I'd also like to see much more competition in the market and that's one the things I work to accomplish. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their > upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut > off specific applications to force it back into the idle state. For > example P2P things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS > servers. How about SMTP? Not sure about you guys but my local broadband > ISP has cut me off and told me that my 'unlimited internet' is in fact > limited. The reality is that those people who are not using it (99.8%?) > are just being ripped off - paying for something they were told they need, > thinking that it's there when they want it, then getting cut off when they > actually try to use it. > > It's not like whining about it here will change anything, but the prices > are severely distorted. Triple play packages are designed to force people > to pay for stuff they don't need or want - distorting the price of a > service hoping to recover it elsewhere, then if the gamble doesn't pan out, > the customer loses again. The whole model is based on people buying stuff > that they won't actually come to collect, so then you can sell it an > infinite number of times. The people who do try to collect what was sold > to them literally end up getting called names and cut off - terms like > "excessive bandwidth user" and "network abuser" are used to describe paying > customers. With regard to the peering disputes, it's hardly surprising > that their business partners are treated with the same attitude as their > customers. Besides, if you cut off the customers and peers who are causing > that saturation, then the existing peering links can support an infinite > number of idle subscribers. The next phase is usage-based-billing which is > kind of like having to pay a fine for using it, so they can artificially > push the price point lower and hopefully get some more idle customers. > That will help get the demand down and keep the infrastructure nice and > idle. When you're paying for every cat video maybe you realize you can > live without it instead. > > Everyone has been trained so well, they don't even flinch anymore when > they hear about "over subscription", and they apologize for the people who > are doing it to them. The restaurant analogy is incorrect - you can go to > the restaurant next door if a place is busy, thus they have pressure to > increase their capacity if they want to sell more meals. With broadband > you can't go anywhere else, (for most people) there's only one restaurant, > and there's a week long waiting list. If you don't like it, you're > probably an abuser or excessive eater anyway. > > -Laszlo > > > On May 16, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of > > requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but > the > > reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of > > custome
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over AT&T making the same requirement since they have much more in the way of transit traffic? I don't think anyone forced Level 3 into their peering agreement with Comcast and it was (roughly) symmetrical for years before Level 3 was contracted by Netflix. Shouldn't Level 3 gone to Comcast and told them they needed to change their peering or get a different contract? Why was Cogent able to maintain (roughly) symmetrical traffic with Comcast when they were the primary path for Netflix to Comcast users? Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just supporting > the argument that in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for > a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic > and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the overwhelming majority of > what they're selling (and have been selling for over a decade) is > asymmetric connectivity. Their traffic imbalance is, arguably, their own > doing. > > How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase revenue/profit) is > another question entirely. I think the most insightful comment in this > discussion was made by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he > states that ISPs have several options to increase revenue A) Increase price > of their product, B) Implement usage restrictions, or C) Charge someone > else/Make someone else your customer. I think he successfully argues that > option C may be the best. As we've seen, the wireless market in the US went > for option B. We've yet to see where the wireline market will go. > > Of course, the market would ideally keep ISPs' demands for revenue/profit > in check and we'd all reach a satisfactory solution. One of the arguments, > one I happen to support, in this thread is that there is not a free market > for internet connectivity in many parts of the US. If there was, I believe > Comcast would be focusing on how to provide a balance between the best > product at the lowest cost and not on how they can monetize their paying > customers in order to increase profits. I appreciate honesty; When a > service provider advertises X Mbps Internet speeds, I expect they can > deliver on their claims (to the whole Internet, and not just the portions > of it they've decided). I understand congestion, overselling, etc. But > choosing which portions of the internet work well and which don't is a lot > more like censorship than service. > > --Blake >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Matthew, There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > > in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential > > ISP > > > to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect > > peering > > > ratios to be symmetric > > > > is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about > > offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be > > 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the > > traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into > > some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. > > > > Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly > > germaine to the conversation at hand. > > > > > Traffic asymmetry across peering connections > was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, > if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic > went asymmetric, the refusals to augment > capacity kicked in, and congestion became > a problem. > > I've seen the same thing; pretty much every > rejection is based on ratio issues, even when > offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the > home market for the users. > > If the refusals hinged on any other clause > of the peering requirements, you'd be right; > but at the moment, that's the flag networks > are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. > So, it may be very "1990", but unfortunately > that seems to be the year many people in > the industry are mentally stuck in. :( > > Matt >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Mark, I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve the upstream you do get an uptick in usage in that direction. What I take issue with is the notion that the upstream is anything like downstream even when the capacity is there. Upstream on ADSL is horribad, especially the first generations (g.lite and g.dmt). Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > Could you expand a bit, Mark on "Social media forces the > > use of symmetric bandwidth"? Which social media > > platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows > > that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? > > What we saw with FTTH deployments is that customers uploaded > more videos and photos to Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, e.t.c. > They didn't do this on ADSL as much (it's too frustrating). > > When that caught on, customers started buying online backup > services - synchronizing backups of their home or office > computers to remote backup infrastructure. Again, they never > did this with ADSL. > > What we learned: don't take it for granted that you will > always know what your customers (or the content providers > who serve them) will do with the bandwidth. If they have it, > expect the worst, and plan for it as best you can. > > Mark. >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of >> requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the >> reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of >> customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal >> insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who >> bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability >> to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates >> were similar. >> > > I've just been on the losing end of yet another piece of why crappy > upstream > bandwidth sucks: Mavericks seems to have decided that my other half's > imovie > library really, really ought to be uploaded to iCloud (without asking, > ftw). > > I can and should be pissed at Apple for doing such a wrongheaded thing, but > the fact is that my upstream bandwidth was saturated for hours and days > and it > was extremely difficult to figure out why. I doubt I'm alone. > > Better upstream bandwidth would have at least made the pain period shorter. > > Mike >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time (well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams and many are well into the double digits. My current connection (tested this morning) is about 22 mbps. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I >> said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another >> 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their >> upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the >> last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they >> have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. >> > > Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have heard > about webrtc, yes? > 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a "tiny group" for long. > > Mike >
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Michael, I didn't claim Webrtc is vapor, I claim that pervasive video calling is vapor. Further, even if that prediction is wrong pervasive video calling isn't enough even if 100% of users adopt it to swing the need for symmetrical bandwidth. An average Skype/Google Hangout/Apple is less than 400 kbps at peak and averages something like 150 kbps. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/iphone-facetime-bandwidth-gets-measured/ Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > >> I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time >> (well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none >> generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of >> the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams >> and many are well into the double digits. My current connection (tested >> this morning) is about 22 mbps. >> > > Um, no it's not vapor. Webrtc is quite real, and the barrier to > implementation > for any random web site is weeks, not years as was the case before. > > I just saw this that you wrote: > > >1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera > today. > > In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that > capability, iirc. They > call them phones nowadays. > > Mike > > >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas > m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: >> >> Scott Helms wrote: >> >> Mike, >> >> In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. >> As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the >> ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the >> percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those >> sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) >> is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they >> have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. >> >> >> Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have >> heard about webrtc, yes? >> 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a "tiny group" for >> long. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >
Re: CMTS/Public Wifi provisioning question
>From talking to folks involved with http://www.cablewifi.com/ and Comcast support there is a separate service flow for the public SSID. I have yet to configure that in the lab, but it sounds like a good project :) Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > It's my understanding that the public Wi-Fi uses the same data flow as the > subcriber's data flow. I've seen nothing in the release notes for ARRIS or > Moto that suggest one can tie an SSID to a specific service flow. > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Ashworth > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:01 AM > To: NANOG > Subject: CMTS/Public Wifi provisioning question > > I expect Frank Bulk to have an opinion on this, all others welcome. > > Hat tip to Bright House -- I've noticed lately that I don't have to go > through their captive portal when using their public wifi hotspots (they > participate in the CableWifi consortium, using WAPs built into their > 6580 and other cablemodems, and offer a carrier-specific connection SSID > as well). > > This has led me to a point of curiosity: > > If I'm the subscriber, and I've paid for 15 mb/s down, then my wired > connection and my private wireless (if provisioned, and they charge > $10/mo, so I'll do that myself, thanks) are using one ... DOCSIS path? > back to the CMTS. > > I assume that cableco provided voice is on a separate path, and I'm sure > the TV service is -- if it's even IP at all. > > But the question is: is that public wifi service *also* on a separate > bandwidth-limited channel out of the cablemodem? > > Offline replies fine, unless you think it's of sufficiently general > interest; I expect it's implementation dependent. > > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 > > >
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima wrote: > > > [...] > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > > > Jima > > > > > I'm sorry. > If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, > it's not an ISP. Full stop. > > There *are* some fundamental basics > that are necessary to function as an ISP; > having an AS number and being able to > speak BGP are pretty much at the top > of the list. > > If you cannot manage to obtain and support > an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time > to consider closing up shop and finding > another line of work. > > Matt >
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Owen, That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima wrote: > > > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who > >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years > >> http://www.lariat.net/) > > > > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding > their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two > months ago: > > > > > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ > > > > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of > http://lariat.net/peering existing, > https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd > expect, either, although I did finally find the link to > http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm > not seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 > wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad > joke at best. > > > > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my > current state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in > Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those > would be a hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. > > > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. > > > > Jima > > I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form > consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a > larger remote exchange. > > For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a > circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, > SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share > cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. > > Owen > >
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential and business customers. They belong to various service provider associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, nor would they class themselves that way. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do bring > some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. > > Matt > On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima wrote: >>> >>> > [...] >>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >>> pipe >>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, >>> an >>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>> > >>> > Jima >>> > >>> > >>> I'm sorry. >>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>> >>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>> having an AS number and being able to >>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>> of the list. >>> >>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>> another line of work. >>> >>> Matt >>> >> >>
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, No one said anything of the sort and now you're trying to redirect. You said, "There *are* some fundamental basics that are necessary to function as an ISP; having an AS number and being able to speak BGP are pretty much at the top of the list." This is false, that's all I said nothing less and nothing more. I never made any statement about this list nor do you hear very many of the folks who work at those companies on here. My company has several ASNs for both historical and operational reasons, all I am pointing out is that you're taking a more limited view of what an ISP is in an eyeball network context and that view is inaccurate. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > I'm sorry. This is a networking mailing list, not a > feel-good-about-yourself mailing list. From the perspective of the > internet routing table, if you don't have your own AS number, you are > completely indistinguishable from your upstream. Period. As far as BGP > is concerned, you don't exist. Only the upstream ISP exists. > > Matt > On Jul 11, 2014 12:33 PM, "Scott Helms" wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> They're providing DSL, cable modem, BWA, or FTTx access to residential >> and business customers. They belong to various service provider >> associations and they're generally the only ISPs in the areas they serve. >> They're ISPs by every definition including the FCC's. Having an ASN does >> _not_ make you an ISP as most of the organizations that have one are not, >> nor would they class themselves that way. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Matthew Petach >> wrote: >> >>> Sure. We call those companies "resellers". Or, if they actually do >>> bring some additional value to the table, they're VARs. Not ISPs. >>> >>> Matt >>> On Jul 11, 2014 10:37 AM, "Scott Helms" wrote: >>> >>>> Matt, >>>> >>>> That's simply not true, if it were then several million US subscribers >>>> wouldn't have access to the Internet at all. There are _lots_ of small >>>> providers that serve rural America (and Canada) that have gotten their IPs >>>> from their transit provider rather than ARIN, are single homed, and have >>>> never considered getting an ASN because it doesn't do anything for them. >>>> >>>> >>>> Scott Helms >>>> Vice President of Technology >>>> ZCorum >>>> (678) 507-5000 >>>> >>>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Petach >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jima wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > [...] >>>>> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a >>>>> pipe >>>>> > to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that >>>>> matter, an >>>>> > ASN. Indeed, not everyone can. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jima >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm sorry. >>>>> If your ISP doesn't have an ASN, >>>>> it's not an ISP. Full stop. >>>>> >>>>> There *are* some fundamental basics >>>>> that are necessary to function as an ISP; >>>>> having an AS number and being able to >>>>> speak BGP are pretty much at the top >>>>> of the list. >>>>> >>>>> If you cannot manage to obtain and support >>>>> an AS number as an ISP, it is probably time >>>>> to consider closing up shop and finding >>>>> another line of work. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Benson, The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books. There are a few potential paths forward that I can see and I'm sure there are more that others can identify: 1) Various governmental funding sources like CAF subsidize the market "enough" for smaller operators to continue to get by. 2) CAF and other funding make rural territories profitable enough that the large operators buy many/most/all of the smaller providers. 3) Prices for rural customers increase to cover the increased costs. 4) Content providers contribute $some_amount to help cover the costs of connectivity. 5) Operators in rural markets fall further behind making rural markets even less attractive and that contributes the trend of rural to urban migration here in the US. Of course a combination of these is also possible or local governments could get more involved, but these look to be the most likely in no real order. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I > also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just > about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may > be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as > the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my > local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett > essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big > ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big > guys. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > -Benson > On Jul 13, 2014 3:59 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > > > > > Just an observation: > > > > I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks. > > > > It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over > > is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever > > it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin > > fighting. > > > > In the early 80s it was downloading the host table, "could people > > please try NOT to all download via a script at exactly midnight!!!" > > > > Then it was free software in the eighties, did WSMR et al really have > > a RIGHT to become a magnet for such popular program downloads?! > > > > And graphic connection to remote super-computer centers. Could the > > images please be generated locally and downloaded "off hours" > > (whatever "off hours" meant on the internet) or even shipped via tape > > etc rather than all these real-time graphical displays running???!!! > > > > Hey, the BACKBONE was 56kb. > > > > Then Usenet, and images, particularly, oh, explicit images because OMG > > imagine if our administration found out our link was slow because > > students (pick a powerless political class to pick on and declare > > THEIR use wasteful) were downloading...um...you know. > > > > And games OMG games. > > > > I remember sitting in an asst provost's office in the 80s being > > lectured about how email was a complete and total waste of the > > university's resources! Computers were for COMPUTING (he had a phd in > > physics which is where that was coming from.) > > > > And the public getting on the internet (ahem.) > > > > On and on. > > > > Now it's video streaming. > > > > And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore. > > > > And then everyone stops arguing about it and goes on to the next thing > > to argue about. Probably will be something in the realm of this > > "Internet of Things" idea, too many people conversing with their > > toaster-ovens. > > > > My comment has always been the same: > > > >There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who try to > >figure out how bake more bread, and those who herd people into > >bread lines. > > > > I've always tried to be the sort of person who tries to figure out how > > to bake more bread. This too shall pass. > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > The World | b...@theworld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, > > Canada > > Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > >
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband subs. I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do with Internet access. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach > > wrote: > > > > > > Brett's concerns seem to center around his > > > ability to be cost-competitive with the big > > > guys in his area...which implies there *are* > > > big guys in his area to have to compete with. > > > > > > He 's running wireless links, from web and prior info as I recall. His > > key business seems to be outside the cable tv / DSL wire loop ranges from > > wire centers. The bigger services seem to have fiber into Laramie, and > > Brett seems to have fiber to that Denver exchange pointlet . > > > > Why he's not getting fiber to a bigger exchange point or better transit > is > > unclear. > > > > There are bandwidth reseller / BGP / interconnect specialist ISPs out > > there who live to fix these things, if there's anything like a viable > > customer base... > > > > Ah--right, that was the genesis of my rant about > "if you don't have an ASN, you don't exist". > He'd first have to get an ASN before he could > engage in getting a different upstream transit, > or connect to different exchange points, etc. > > As much as people insisted you can be an > ISP without an AS number, I will note that > it's much, MUCH harder, to the point where > the ARIN registration fees for the AS number > would quickly be recouped by the cost savings > of being able to shop for more competitive > connectivity options. > > Matt > > > > > > > > George William Herbert > > Sent from my iPhone > > >
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN. Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change of addressing for everyone else. Please note, this is not a money making operation for us. Its something we started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth providers when they became available. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP > > should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators > > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for > > connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is > > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all > 6 > > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband > > subs. > > > > And as long as they're happy with their single upstream > connectivity picture, more power to them. > > But the minute they're less than happy with > their connectivity option, it would sure be > nice to have their own ASN and their own > IP space, so that going to a different upstream > provider would be possible. Heck, even just > having it as a *bargaining point* would be > useful. > > By not having it, they're essentially locking > the slave collar around their own neck, and > handing the leash to their upstream, along > with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice > loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone > would subject their business to that level > of slavery. But I do acknowledge your > point, that for some category of people, > they are happy as clams with that > arrangement. > > > > > > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > > with Internet access. > > > > Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship > in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive > ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does > having an ASN make you an ISP. > > Thanks! > > Matt >
Re: Net Neutrality...
Steve, I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, "Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us." Perhaps you've just been lucky or your economics are different, but I can (off list) provide you with lots of locations in the US that neither of those operators, much less both, can reach. Perhaps more importantly the economics are such that one and only one tier 2 (sometimes tier 2/3) operator is available. I work with an ISP in west Texas who has been waiting on an AT&T build out for nearly 14 months to be able to buy bandwidth from anyone because there is no remaining capacity on the SONET network and no other operator has any physical facilities in the area. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs > are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. > Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a > lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in > rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink > access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never > found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to > deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. > Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always > have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would > consider the broadband options available to them before they move. > > Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. > Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if > they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused > of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access > provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not > the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the > service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk > the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their > own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the > oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them > but they will take what they can get. > > Steven Naslund > > > > > >>>Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband > providers are both > >>>- near-monopolies in their access areas > >>>- content providers > > >>>Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. > > >>>Miles Fidelman > >
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Brett, You should investigate TVWS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data rate challenges. The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of unlicensed space and it goes much further than the other unlicensed bands like ISM and UNII. Technically the same amount of frequency was released for everyone, but in urban/suburban markets much more is already taken by licensed over the air TV broadcasters and wireless microphones, both as licensed users have absolute rights to the frequencies they're using. If you want to know vendors that supply the gear, since most of the BWA guys haven't grabbed it yet, let me know and I'll send what I have off list. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > >If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? > > It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again, > I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high > backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that > Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this > is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting > pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to > solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for > workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming > service that is more ISP-friendly. > > >I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use > >the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) > > We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a > company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and > Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have > such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are > attempting > to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, > which > is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as > valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the > amount > per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are > higher. > > >but none of your plans > >are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per > >stream for Super HD). > > Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether > that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves > say.) > > >Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in > rural areas. > > Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing > about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price > gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has > also > failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide > much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth > carefully. > We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a > choice > of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied > with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's > algorithm, > a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for > each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. > So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good > experience. > Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed > speeds. > > We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But > Netflix > doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their > customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. > > >I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and > >then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to > >40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. > > Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark > fiber > in our area. > > >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul > >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ > > That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. > Most of > our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our > options; > we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave > links > throughout our network. > > Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout > my entire > life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. > > --Brett Glass > >
Re: Net Neutrality...
Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government considers to be an ETC. Keep in mind that state level boards actually make the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in. Having said, that the requirements have not seemed overly onerous to us where we have considered them, which certainly isn't all 50 states. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-46A1.pdf "20. As described above, ETC applicants must meet statutorily prescribed requirements before we can approve their designation as an ETC.46 Based on the record before us, we find that an ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide services, including providing service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional in emergency situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.47 As noted above, these requirements are mandatory for all ETCs designated by the Commission. ETCs designated by the Commission prior to this Report and Order will be required to make such showings when they submit their annual certification filing on October 1, 2006. We also encourage state commissions to apply these requirements to all ETC applicants over which they exercise jurisdiction. We do not believe that different ETCs should be subject to different obligations, going forward, because of when they happened to first obtain ETC designation from the Commission or the state. These are responsibilities associated with receiving universal service support that apply to all ETCs, regardless of the date of initial designation." Its also worth noting that you do _not_ have to offer voice or life line services according the federal guidelines. "3947 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The services that are supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms are: (1) voice grade access to the public switched network; (2) local usage; (3) Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF) signaling or its functional equivalent; (4) single-party service or its functional equivalent; (5) access to emergency services, including 911 and enhanced 911; (6) access to operator services; (7) access to interexchange services; (8) access to directory assistance; and (9) toll limitation for qualifying low-income customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.101. While section 214(e)(1) requires an ETC to “offer” the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms, the Commission has determined that this does not require a competitive carrier to actually provide the supported services throughout the designated service area before designation as an ETC. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15172-75, paras. 10- 18 (2000), recon. pending (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling)." That was once a requirement that kept most WISPs from being able to participate, but is no longer. I don't personally see a large hurdle for WISPs in the federal language and I work with 4 I know of that have ETC status in 3 different states. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote: > I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is > riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for > internet services...pretty much just for LECs. > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO > > > > > > I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with > > everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of > > becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving > > rural > > ISPs a bad reputation. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass > wrote: > > > >> At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > >> > >> Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service > >> Fund, > >>> as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? > >>> > >> > >> It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. > >> The FCC is demanding that ISPs become "Eligible Telecommunications > >> Carriers," or ETCs, before they can receive money
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
In an organization as large as Verizon there are many reasons why a policy gets changed. I'm certain that there are product guys who were saying our customers want this. I'm sure there were marketing folks saying we can build a marketing campaign around it. I am equally certain that some there were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If they didn't re-engineer their splits (or plan for symmetrical from the beginning) they could run into some problems because the total speed on a GPON port is asymmetrical, about 2.5 gbps down to 1.25 gbps up. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt > to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point? > - jra > > > On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone > wrote: > >There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. > >Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but > >still lost. > > > >Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are .. > >PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ... > >Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable & > >Telecommunications Association." > > > > > http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires > > > >In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical. > > > http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/ > > > >On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for > >municipalities > >> to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon > >and > >> other cable companies/MSOs[1]. > >> > >> Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 > >> press release[2]. > >> > >> FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the > >FCC > >> to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal. > >> > >> Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea: > >> > >> > > > http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet > >> > >> [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: > >> > >> > > > http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468 > >] > >> > >> While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are > >political; > >> this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably > >political. > >> My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- jra > >> > >> [1] > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused > >> [2] > > > https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 > >> -- > >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > >j...@baylink.com > >> Designer The Things I Think > >RFC 2100 > >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > >Rover DII > >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 > >647 1274 > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Bill, I've certainly seen poor execution from public operators, but I have also seen several that were well run and over the course of years (in one case decades). They're not right in all cases, but to simply say it can't be done well is false. Now, we do have to be sensitive to public <--> private competition but in cases where there is already a monopoly or even worse no broadband service I can't see how keeping muni's out helps consumers. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth 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? >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Jay, I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to work with the access technology. The group responsible for peering and other transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale by decades. Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been the norm world wide for a very long time. We're only now getting to a place where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none of the "common" approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for Ethernet. I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available. Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said that this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they went after transit is a mistake IMO. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Christopher Morrow" > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms > > wrote: > > > I am equally certain that some there > > > were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better > > > position to argue from if we need to against Netflix. > > > > wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part > > in the verizon blog? > > (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to > > verizon/netflix issues) > > I made the argument, so I'll clarify. > > One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem > was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball > network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how > their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're > complaining about now. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Bill, I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local officials. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote: > > My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on > > and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... > > Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've > suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade > and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about > my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the > service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing > department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the > lawyers. > > And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help > folks in a truly remote location. > > > Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? > > It isn't. > > 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? >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Bill, If your issues are common in your town then getting the attention of city/town hall ought to be pretty damn easy, I've had to do so myself. If its just your neighborhood it still ought not be very hard. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're > > in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local > > officials. > > Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a > long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials > that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the > problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate > increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? > > 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? >
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote: > > > > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. > > > > That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy > for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive > landline customers. > > Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the > peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take > advantage of a captive install base > > > Sent via telepathy > > > > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By wrote: > > > > > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering > > > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers > also > > > suffer the same performance issue? >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
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 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 > 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 > > > > >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, PON versus Active Ethernet versus $topology_of_the_day makes no real difference. If you buy low port density shelves then your cost per port will be higher. BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. "It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place." In my experience that's simply untrue today. Trying to put multiple operator's layer 2 gear into the collocation space needed inevitably leads to that space not having enough power, rack units, or cooling and that's not considering the complaints (actual) of ISP1 accusing ISP2's tech of intentionally "tripping" over a cable and causing an outage for them. Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't need them to. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms 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. >> > > Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active > customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even > higher densities. > > Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver > triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start > doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as > IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. > > It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of > residential properties in the same place. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, Let me see if I can clarify for you. "I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question?" First, QinQ VLAN scaling hasn't been a problem in about a decade nor is it hard to split out the VLANs to hand them off to other providers. Second, all of the gear vendors that I've worked with already have methods for handling source verification and port isolation if you don't want to do QinQ. Certainly any of the "traditional" vendors of broadband gear will have answers for this already and unless you're planning on grabbing some enterprise class shelf and jamming it with long range lasers (which most won't take) you don't have a problem. Even the Cisco ME line, which is pretty damn cheap, does this by default http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12-2_25_seg_seg1/configuration/guide/3400scg/swtrafc.html#wp1038501 "If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling." The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k apartments and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities are much less dense. "This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities?" The economies of scale are completely different for one thing. Second, the phone companies designed their land purchases and buildings around doing wiring centers and central offices, the cities have never had this need and most don't have a suitable building (power, cooling, and security) that isn't already occupied. That's why its _much_ easier to let the ISPs bring in some fiber and let them hold all their gear at their site. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since >> neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network >> anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done >> between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including >> the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like >> DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. >> > > I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use > very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per > vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? > > Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible >> that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and >> where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't >> need them to. >> > > If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this > warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. > > This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for > municipalities? > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
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. "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. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms 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 > > It's not, actually. > > The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss > characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. > > > 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 > > 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. > > > 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. > > The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a > recipe for > exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in > earlier > comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly > as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that > to happen. > > 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? > > Owen > > > > > > > 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 wrote: > > > >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because of the specific projects and cities I've worked with. In all the cases I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a never ending stream of finger pointing. I'd also say that just because your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: > > 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. >> > > I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active > network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault > finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial > relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to > assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill > and resources needed. > > Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing > you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and > you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, > perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, > is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
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 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 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 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 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 > >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US. There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain, and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have the same position that Bill Herrin has written from. It takes a real need to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place where spending money is politically feasible. I would add that this is much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable path to getting repaid than an open system. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast . wrote: > > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k > apartments > and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't > have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities > are much less dense. > > I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less > dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network > being built. > >> >>
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, Its an interesting idea and I'd like to see some communities try it here. Having said that, I anticipate that B4RN style networks will run into some substantial maintenance and reliability issues over time. I love the quote in the economist from the farmer's wife who learned (assuming automated) fusion splicing, "It’s only like knitting,” but that doesn't make me confident about the quality of the splices nor the cabling in general. They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years is not impressive at all. "B4RN is a case in point. In two years its volunteers have laid 200km of cable, and wired up around 400 homes, without any taxpayer money." http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601265-frustrated-country-dwellers-build-their-own-internet-connections-going-underground Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements >> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more >> reliable >> path to getting repaid than an open system. >> > > Another model is the one described for instance in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked > successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in > ducts or fiber themselves. > > In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to > cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a > backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. It's > a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your neighborhood > people getting together in doing something, instead of $BIGTELCO that has > screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting to do the same thing. > Also, after putting it in, you own the infrastructure, so it might actually > be a good investment and raise your property value. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, Fiber length is least representative measure of work as it relates to putting fiber in the ground. Now, its impressive that they did anything but if a professional crew took more than a couple of months to do this they'd be out of a job. I 'd be much more impressed by a lower distance covered but more homes and businesses connected or the cabling being ready for connection (ie homes passed). Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: > > They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while >> getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years >> is not impressive at all. >> > > I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective in most scenarios. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: > > I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that... > > I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and > personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress, > lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue press releases, etc. in actual real > live engineering that would -- and I know this is a ridiculous concept, > so bear with me -- fix the root cause of the problem. > > ---rsk >
Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
Yes... The key word there is perception. The question is whether it makes more sense to put effort into correcting mis-perceptions or to put the effort into providing workarounds which provide a sub-par networking experience to the end user. IMNSHO, it is better to put effort into education. I'm surprised to find someone from a .EDU on the opposite side of that thought. One would normally expect them to favor the idea of education over hackery. There are few things harder on the planet than changing perception and one of the few is changing human behavior. NAT is normal for many/most enterprises and the thought of trying to explain sub-par networking to most business leaders makes my teeth hurt. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
that those addresses are static. They can do this with a ULA prefix if they want (RFC 4193). It is both private and most likely (really, very, very likely) unique. This assumes they only want their printer or NAS to be accessible on their own local network. Regards, Leo That is the case in the vast majority of situations. Many users want to be able to access their home network resources remotely on occasion but they don't want everyone else to be able to and printers and other appliances have little if any security built into them. The paradigm of internal versus external networking is going to be very hard to educate past given that most users are comfortable with how it works today. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
On 8/2/2011 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote: And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones for that matter, do that? Well, if you want my business, you'll do it. If not, I'll route around you as damage. If enough customers approach the problem this way, it will happen. No disrespect intended, but I don't think you're representative of the average or even above average ISP customer. For that matter neither are the majority of the participants on this list. In addition, I think a large number of providers are already seeing that static is, for the most part, just simpler to manage in IPv6 and considering going that way. The cable MSOs are the obvious exception for semi-obvious reasons specific to their technology. From my observations only the cable MSOs are even somewhat prepared for IPv6 because Cablelabs included it in the DOCSIS 3.0 spec. The DSL and FTTx networks I've seen are much further behind to the point that only some kind of tunneling (mainly RD) makes sense as a transition technology because of the layer 2 challenges. A large organization that does that should get their own PI space and multihome. Why would they do anything else? Owen I thought we were talking about residential users specifically here... -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: FTTH CPE landscape
For residential use, for users currently requesting one public address, that's a waste of a /30 block (sans routing tricks requiring higher end customer equipment). Multiply that by the number of residential customers you have and that's bordering on mismanagement of your address space. If you're dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted ratio is much higher and less of a concern, but what's the point? Are you trying to cut down on a large broadcast domain? Any rational layer 2 access gear regardless of the technology (DSL, FTTx, wireless, or DOCSIS) will/can handle layer 2 isolation already. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: FTTH CPE landscape
You say waste, I say perfectly valid use. Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and no the reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly over a bridged interface). If you're dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted ratio is much higher and less of a concern, but what's the point? Are you trying to cut down on a large broadcast domain? Why is it less of a waste to allocate a /30 to a business using a single public IP than it is to a residence? This makes no sense to me. I simply prefer the additional troubleshooting and other capabilities given to me in a routed environment in most cases. If you want that then you need to run a router not have a /30 routed over your WAN interface. Its far better for your WAN interface to be part of a much larger subnet that we can in turn route a network to. Owen -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: FTTH CPE landscape
On 8/4/2011 8:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Among the people I know, on the order of 35%. Not a majority, but, I would not call 1/3rd less than 1%. Again, you're not in any way shape or form representative. IPSEC IS less than 1% for residential Internet customers in the US and its not even 30% for business accounts. I have visibility into access networks around North America which gives me a sample size that is far larger than required for statistical significance. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: FTTH CPE landscape
I was speaking from the service provider perspective. If I deploy CPE to a customer, I want it to be a router, not a bridge. Owen Why? What is/are the technical or marketing reason(s) that make you want to deploy routers over bridges knowing that they are more expensive? For what kinds of customers? What kinds of access networks? How much do you want to spend on CPE gear? How much remote manageability? How much customer manageability? What about mass firmware upgrades, diagnostics, and other OSS functions? (AFAIK the only standards based option for management behind a router is TR-069). -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries
Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually hijacking HTTP sessions instead all of these are DNS based tricks. Since the service providers are also providing DNS (via Paxfire and others) users don't have a lot of choice. You can switch to using a known public name server (Google's 8.8.8.8 for example) but I hesitate to recommend that to most end users because in non-evil networks its better to have local name resolution (because of GSLB & other reasons). On 8/5/2011 9:14 PM, Joe Provo wrote: On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gopal wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html It is more than slightly misleading to say "hijacking search queries"; paxfire is evil as it hijacks dns and breaks NXDOMAIN and they've been doing that for ages. The user behavior of searching in the address bar has become more common place, and browser behavior to try and resolve first, fallback to search for the same input field has both trained the humans to keep doing this and made it possible for DNS query interlopers to appear to be generic-search interlopers. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries
Not trying to be obtuse, but none of the technical docs you cite appear to talk about HTTP proxies nor does the newswire report have any technical details. I have tested several of the networks listed in the report and in none of the cases I saw was there HTTP proxy activity. Picking up on WCCP/TCS isn't that hard (I used to install those myself) so unless there is some functionality in IOS and/or JUNOS that allows I don't see it happening. Paxfire can operate all of the proxies they want but the network infrastructure has to be able to pass the traffic over to those proxies and I don't see it (on at least 3 of the networks cited). What the FAQ doesn't tell you is that the Paxfire appliances can tamper with DNS traffic received from authoritative DNS servers not operated by the ISP. A paxfire box can alter NXDOMAIN queries, and queries that respond with known search engines' IPs. to send your HTTP traffic to their HTTP proxies instead. Ty, http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/blog/ " In addition, some ISPs employ an optional, unadvertised Paxfire feature that redirects the entire stream of affected customers' web search requests to Bing, Google, and Yahoo via HTTP proxies operated by Paxfire. These proxies seemingly relay most searches and their corresponding results passively, in a process that remains invisible to the user. Certain keyword searches, however, trigger active interference by the HTTP proxies. " http://www.icir.org/christian/publications/2011-satin-netalyzr.pdf http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=137208 -- -JH -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
Tim, Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation & managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote: On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote: Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF. For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use. Tim On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------- -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
Owen, The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon & software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent. On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough. Owen On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Tim, Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote: On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote: Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF. For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use. Tim On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 ---- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 ---- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments. The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that question. Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD. What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office? Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind? Owen On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Owen, The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than bridges because there is more complexity (silicon& software). Routers also cost more to manage for a service provider in almost all cases for residential customers. There are reasons to deploy routing CPE in some cases (the use cases are increasing with IP video in DOCSIS systems) but they are still very nascent. On 8/10/2011 7:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I'm pretty sure that I understand those things reasonably well. I'm quite certain that it doesn't cost an ISP significantly more to deploy /48s than /56s as addresses don't have much of a cost and there is little or no difficulty in obtaining large allocations for ISPs that have lots of residential users. The difference between handing a user's CPE a /56 and a /48 will not make for significant difference in support costs, either, other than the possible additional costs of the phone calls when users start to discover that /56s were not enough. Owen On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Tim, Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user support, ease of installation& managemenet, and (perhaps most importantly) the economics of mass adoption. This one of the choices that made DSL deployments more complex and expensive than DOCSIS cable deployments which in turn caused the CEO of AT&T to say their entire DSL network is obsolete. http://goo.gl/exwqu On 8/10/2011 12:57 PM, Tim Chown wrote: On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote: Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by agreement, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Well, there is some new effort on this in the homenet WG in IETF. For snooping IPv6 multicast it's MLD snooping rather than IGMP. We use it in our enterprise since we have multiple multicast video channels in use. Tim On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Bridging eliminates the multicast isolation that you get from routing. This is not a case for bridging, it's a case for making it possible to do real routing in the home and we now have the space and the technology to actually do it in a meaningful and sufficiently automatic way as to be applicable to Joe 6-Mac. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
On 8/11/2011 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm talking about the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways that residential end users will deploy on their own within their environments. The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers. If you didn't understand the question or didn't want to address that specific questions that's fine, but you certainly didn't answer that question. I think i did below. However, in my region of the world, most service providers don't provide the CPE and most customers are BYOB. Are you not CONUS? I thought I specified North American market, if not that was my intent, and in NA the service providers do supply in excess of 95% of all CPE. (Keep in mind that the term CPE is actually a little dangerous since telcos use it one way and cable providers another, in this case I am referring to the access device that provides the PHY translation from the access network (DSL, DOCSIS, FTTx, wireless, etc) and that device, which can be a router or a bridge, is almost always provided by the service provider.) My entire question is really should that device be a router in the future in your opinion. Of course, in order for the ISP to properly support these things in the home, the ISP needs to terminate some form of IPv6 on some form of CPE head-end router in the home to which he will (statically or otherwise) route the /48 whether it is statically assigned or configured via DHCPv6-PD. What is a CPE head-end router? That seems like an oxymoron. Where would such an animal live, in the home or the head end/central office? Who is responsible for purchasing it and managing it in your mind? In the home and the consumer is responsible. The fact that you utterly want to avoid the concept of topology in the home shows me that you really aren't understanding where things already are in many homes and where they are going in the future. ISP->CPE Head End Router-> I'm not avoiding anything, the term CPE head end router is oxymoronic and AFAIK isn't an industry term at all. I simply want to understand where in the physical network this theoretical device lives and who owns it. If its a customer premise device then you shouldn't describe it as having anything to do with the head end, since that's the other side (often a long way away) of the connection. Some definitions of the above pseudo-diagram already exist in many people's homes (and I am including Joe six-pack in this) today. Lots of users string wired and wireless routers together in multiple layers with and without NAT in various (and often creative albeit not necessarily constructive) ways within their homes. Today, all of that is hidden from you because their CPE head end router (the one that talks to your supplied bridge in most cases) NATs it all behind one address. In the future, it will be semi-visible in that you'll see the additional addresses, but, you still won't have to do anything about it because it's routed and all you have to do is deliver the /48 instead of delivering the /128 (equivalent of the /32 you deliver today). Well, that's not really true. Given the complexities of firewalls and allowed access the requirements for service providers to manage that for most home users is going to increase rather than stay the same or decrease. That's kind of the point of TR-069 and the related suite (TR-098 especially). -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
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. >> > >> > - 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,
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
TR-069 (part of which is CWMP) has been around a long long time and Telcodria is well aware of it. The real problem is getting it actually implemented well on CPE gear since the TM Forum didn't even have a certification process until this year. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Jason Baugher" > >> I can't vouch for these yet, since I haven't used one so far. >> http://www.calix.com/systems/p-series/calix_residential_services_gateways.html > > Yeah; see my other reply a few minutes ago. > >> It looks to be a Broadband Forum spec, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069. >> I'm not using it yet either, but find it interesting. > > I see that it is, and I'm frankly *amazed* that it's gotten industry > uptake to the point people will quote it on ticklists. Probably, everyone > *else* thinks it's a bellcore standard, like I did. :-) > > Can't wait for Telcordia to try to sue them over the prefix. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Except for the fact that the people waiting for their gold shipment expect it to be treated as gold and not kaolin or chickens. At the end of the day the ISP is who gets called first and sometime they're the only person an end user can reach. Try this one day if you're ready for some frustration as a normal end user try and contact Google about emails not getting to your Gmail box. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > Working in a mixed TDM and IP world, it's such a stark difference between > freely available RFCs and $900 per pop Telcordia docs. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Jason Baugher" >> >> > I can't vouch for these yet, since I haven't used one so far. >> > >> http://www.calix.com/systems/p-series/calix_residential_services_gateways.html >> >> Yeah; see my other reply a few minutes ago. >> >> > It looks to be a Broadband Forum spec, >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069. >> > I'm not using it yet either, but find it interesting. >> >> I see that it is, and I'm frankly *amazed* that it's gotten industry >> uptake to the point people will quote it on ticklists. Probably, everyone >> *else* thinks it's a bellcore standard, like I did. :-) >> >> Can't wait for Telcordia to try to sue them over the prefix. >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >> j...@baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think RFC >> 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land >> Rover DII >> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 >> 1274 >> >> -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
thought, I think it places way too much potential for L2 to be the > > bottleneck or source of problematic service and if it's provided by a > > public utility or municipality it could take very long to fix (if it > > get's fixed at all) due to politics and budget hawks. I really want > > to have choice between providers even at the L2 level. > > There are cases where the lack of L2 services could pose a barrier > to entry for competition. That's why I proposed the following requirements: > > 1. Must sell dark fiber to any purchaser. > 2. Must sell dark fiber to all purchasers on equal terms. > (There must be a published price list and there cannot be > deviations > from that price list. If the price list is modified, existing > customers > receive the new pricing at the beginning of their next billing > cycle.) > 3. May provide value-added L2 services > 4. If L2 services are provided, they are also subject to rule 2. > 5. May not sell L3 or higher level services. > 6. May not hold ownership or build any form of alliance or > affiliation with > a provider of L3 or higher level services. > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Leo Bicknell" > >> > >>> I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to > >>> be 100% clear about what I advocate here: > >>> > >>> - Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A > >>> big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers are > >>> all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory terms. > >> > >>> - 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR space. > >>> No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical > >>> handoff inside the home. > >> > >> Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets > smaller > >> players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than > >> mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as > clients > >> are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the > fashion you > >> suggest? > >> > >> (I concur with your 3-pair delivery, which makes this more practical on > an > >> M-A-C basis, even if it might require some users to have multiple > ONTs...) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- jra > >> -- > >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > >> Designer The Things I Think > RFC 2100 > >> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > >> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 > 647 1274 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, You can't share access from one splitter to multiple OLTs so the location of the splitter isn't important. AFAIK there is simply no concept for that idea in any of the PON specs and its certainly not something that Calix/Adtran/Zhone/Alcatel/$gear_maker are building right now. For that matter I can't think of a single piece of gear beyond DWDM/CWDM that actually operates are layer 1 to allow that kind of split and then its very limited in terms of the channels available and not suitable for the kind of deployment I think you're describing. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > That's why I'm not advocating for open access, I'm advocating for L1/L2 > provider > separation and a requirement that the L1 access itself be open. > > I have yet to get a firm answer, but as I understand PON, it doesn't > actually matter > so much whether you put the splitter/combiner in an MMR or near the CPE. > Obviously, most of the "economy" of PON comes from putting the splitter > near > the subscriber, but so does the loss of open access at L1. > > OTOH, if you build out fiber from a city or neighborhood or whatever to an > independent MMR, I don't believe there's any reason you couldn't > cross-connect > various users home-run fibers to splitter/combiners inside the MMR and then > run that to a PON system (if you really wanted to for some reason). > > Owen > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:45 , Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > > The short answer is that you don't today and it will be a long time (if > ever) before its feasible. Europe is commonly held up as an example of an > area where open access works and if you stick to DSL networks that's true. > The problem is that the DSL networks (by and large) in Europe aren't > expanding and are being overtaken by FTTx and to a lesser extent DOCSIS. > The reasons why this is so can be debated, but it is definitely happening > and given that trend there is very little incentive for the equipment > manufacturers and protocol groups to build in open access as a core part of > their design as it was in DSL, especially with PPPoX authentication. > > Now, once networks get to purely active Ethernet things get more simple > technically, after all you easily do QinQ tagging, but there has been > little movement even in regulation tolerant Europe to force operators to > open up and its much less likely to happen here in the US. Whats more many > of the FTTx builds aren't Ethernet today and doing open access on any > flavor of PON is so painful operationally that it simply won't happen. > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 07:07 , Ray Soucy wrote: >> >> > Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in that we established a >> > model in Maine that is working pretty well, at least for middle-mile >> > fiber. >> > >> > When we started building out MaineREN (our RON) we decided that having >> > the University own the fiber would tie it up in political red tape. >> > So much so that it would ultimately not be made available to the >> > private sector (because incumbents would accuse us of competing with >> > them using public funds). We knew this because we had already spent a >> > year in the legislature fighting off industry lobbyists. >> > >> > Obviously there are considerable investments in such infrastructure >> > that many private companies are unwilling or unable to make in rural >> > areas (ROI takes too long), so we really wanted to make sure that >> > future facilities would be built out in a way that would allow service >> > providers to expand into the state cheaply, encourage competition, and >> > ultimately provide better services at lower costs. >> > >> > The goal was to establish geographically diverse, high stand-count, >> > rings to reach the majority of the state, so we pitched it in a >> > public-private partnership to go after Recovery Act funding. >> > >> >> That's also a worthy goal, but it doesn't address the issues that >> are the subject of this conversation. Middle-mile solutions >> like this are not all that uncommon, even in such backwards >> places (when it comes to networking infrastructure) as silicon >> valley. >> >> Where we still have a serious lack of deployment and virtually no >> competition, even in most major metros, is the last mile. >> >> > As of a few months ago the build-out is complete, and the first >> > networks to make use of the fiber are starting to come
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, Respectfully, it doesn't work that way. You have to understand that the splitter is a specific part of the PON architecture and they don't have multiple outputs to connect to several OLTs like a patch panel or even a switch you can VLAN. One fiber goes to the splitter on the provider side and then from there it splits into 8/16/32/64 connections that go to customers. You can't exchange one of the customer side ports to make another provider interface. That's not to say you couldn't build a splitter to do just that, but to do that you have to get the vendors on board and currently they simply aren't nor are the people who build PON networks asking for that feature. You also have to deal with the mechanics of turning up the port, ie deciding which OLT to send that color to, which kind of kills the passive part of PON. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:27 , Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > > You can't share access from one splitter to multiple OLTs so the location > of the splitter isn't important. AFAIK there is simply no concept for that > idea in any of the PON specs and its certainly not something that > Calix/Adtran/Zhone/Alcatel/$gear_maker are building right now. For that > matter I can't think of a single piece of gear beyond DWDM/CWDM that > actually operates are layer 1 to allow that kind of split and then its very > limited in terms of the channels available and not suitable for the kind of > deployment I think you're describing. > > > > Sure it is... > > If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you > can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided > by $PROVIDER_1 and cross connect all of $PROVIDER_2's customers to > a splitter provided by $PROVIDER_2, etc. > > If the splitter is out in the neighborhood, then $PROVIDER_1 and > $PROVIDER_2 > and... all need to build out to every neighborhood. > > If you have the splitter next to the PON gear instead of next to the > subscribers, > then you remove the relevance of the inability to connect a splitter to > multiple > OLTs. The splitter becomes the provider interface to the open fiber plant. > > Owen > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> That's why I'm not advocating for open access, I'm advocating for L1/L2 >> provider >> separation and a requirement that the L1 access itself be open. >> >> I have yet to get a firm answer, but as I understand PON, it doesn't >> actually matter >> so much whether you put the splitter/combiner in an MMR or near the CPE. >> Obviously, most of the "economy" of PON comes from putting the splitter >> near >> the subscriber, but so does the loss of open access at L1. >> >> OTOH, if you build out fiber from a city or neighborhood or whatever to an >> independent MMR, I don't believe there's any reason you couldn't >> cross-connect >> various users home-run fibers to splitter/combiners inside the MMR and >> then >> run that to a PON system (if you really wanted to for some reason). >> >> Owen >> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:45 , Scott Helms wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> The short answer is that you don't today and it will be a long time (if >> ever) before its feasible. Europe is commonly held up as an example of an >> area where open access works and if you stick to DSL networks that's true. >> The problem is that the DSL networks (by and large) in Europe aren't >> expanding and are being overtaken by FTTx and to a lesser extent DOCSIS. >> The reasons why this is so can be debated, but it is definitely happening >> and given that trend there is very little incentive for the equipment >> manufacturers and protocol groups to build in open access as a core part of >> their design as it was in DSL, especially with PPPoX authentication. >> >> Now, once networks get to purely active Ethernet things get more simple >> technically, after all you easily do QinQ tagging, but there has been >> little movement even in regulation tolerant Europe to force operators to >> open up and its much less likely to happen here in the US. Whats more many >> of the FTTx builds aren't Ethernet today and doing open access on any >> flavor of PON is so painful operationally that it simply won't happen. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 07:07 , Ray Soucy wrote: >>> >>> > Late to the conversation, but I'll chime in
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Fletcher nailed it, if you want the architecture you're describing then you simply don't want PON. Its built around lower cost and a big part of that lower cost is minimizing the fiber costs by serving splitters (and thus many homes) from a single fiber that back hauls to the CO. The other reason PON won't work for what you want is the splitters are passive and completely static in their operation. Here's an image of one that may make this clearer: http://media.wholesale-electrical-electronics.com/product/imgage/Electrical&Electronics/2010101220/6dc7c82d59d9fd931bfba560a3e85031.jpg If you have to either run several (or more) fibers to a neighborhood or have managed neighborhood elements then you've simply destroyed the use case for PON. Luckily this use case matches pretty exactly for Ethernet, but you must do your wholesale play at layer 2 IMO to work economically. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:57 , Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you >> can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided >> by $PROVIDER_1 and cross connect all of $PROVIDER_2's customers to >> a splitter provided by $PROVIDER_2, etc. >> >> If the splitter is out in the neighborhood, then $PROVIDER_1 and >> $PROVIDER_2 >> and... all need to build out to every neighborhood. >> >> If you have the splitter next to the PON gear instead of next to the >> subscribers, >> then you remove the relevance of the inability to connect a splitter to >> multiple >> OLTs. The splitter becomes the provider interface to the open fiber plant > > > Owen; > > Interesting. Do you then lose the cost advantage because you need home > run fiber back to the MMR? Do you have examples of plants built with this > architecture (I know of one such plant, but I am hoping you will turn up > more examples.) > > > I don't know of any. Yes, it would eliminate part of the theoretical cost > savings of the PON architecture, but the point is that it would provide a > technology agnostic last mile infrastructure that could easily be used by > multiple competing providers and would not prevent a provider from using > PON if they chose to do so for other reasons. > > Owen > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm actually sympathetic to your goal, but it simply can't work the way you're describing it in a PON network. Also, please don't base logic for open access on meet me rooms, this works in colo spaces and carrier hotels but doesn't in broadband deployments because of economics. If you want to champion this worthy goal you've got to accept that economics is a huge reason why this hasn't happened in the US and is disappearing where it has happened globally. > Bottom line, you've got OLT -> FIBER(of length n) -> splitter -> > fiber-drops to each house -> ONT. > So far you're correct. > > All I'm proposing is making n really short and making "fiber-drops to each > house" really long. > I'm not proposing changing the fundamental architecture. Yes, I recognize > this changes the economics and may well make PON less attractive than other > alternatives. I don't care. That's not a primary concern. The question is > "can PON be made to work in this environment?" It appears to me that it can. > Here is where you're problems start. The issue is that the signal *prior to being split* can go 20km if you're splitting it 32 ways (or less) or 10km if you're doing a 64 way split. AFTER the splitter you have a MAX radius of about 1 mile from the splitter. Here is a good document that describes the problem in some detail: http://www.ofsoptics.com/press_room/media-pdfs/FTTH-Prism-0909.pdf Also, here is a proposed spec that would allow for longer runs post splitter with some background on why it can't work in today's GPON deployments. http://www.ericsson.com/il/res/thecompany/docs/publications/ericsson_review/2008/3_PON.pdf -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Jason, Loss is loss, but that's not all that we have to deal with here inside of how PON works. I can tell you that not a single manufacturer I've worked with says anything differently. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > I disagree. Loss is loss, regardless of where the splitter is placed in > the equation. Distance x loss + splitter insertion loss = total loss for > purposes of link budget calculation. > > The reason to push splitters towards the customer end is financial, not > technical. > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> You're basing your math off of some incorrect assumptions about PON. I'm >> actually sympathetic to your goal, but it simply can't work the way you're >> describing it in a PON network. Also, please don't base logic for open >> access on meet me rooms, this works in colo spaces and carrier hotels but >> doesn't in broadband deployments because of economics. If you want to >> champion this worthy goal you've got to accept that economics is a huge >> reason why this hasn't happened in the US and is disappearing where it has >> happened globally. >> >> >> > Bottom line, you've got OLT -> FIBER(of length n) -> splitter -> >> > fiber-drops to each house -> ONT. >> > >> >> So far you're correct. >> >> >> > >> > All I'm proposing is making n really short and making "fiber-drops to >> each >> > house" really long. >> > I'm not proposing changing the fundamental architecture. Yes, I >> recognize >> > this changes the economics and may well make PON less attractive than >> other >> > alternatives. I don't care. That's not a primary concern. The question >> is >> > "can PON be made to work in this environment?" It appears to me that it >> can. >> > >> >> >> Here is where you're problems start. The issue is that the signal *prior >> to being split* can go 20km if you're splitting it 32 ways (or less) or >> 10km if you're doing a 64 way split. AFTER the splitter you have a MAX >> radius of about 1 mile from the splitter. >> >> Here is a good document that describes the problem in some detail: >> >> http://www.ofsoptics.com/press_room/media-pdfs/FTTH-Prism-0909.pdf >> >> >> Also, here is a proposed spec that would allow for longer runs post >> splitter with some background on why it can't work in today's GPON >> deployments. >> >> >> http://www.ericsson.com/il/res/thecompany/docs/publications/ericsson_review/2008/3_PON.pdf >> >> -- >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal open access network (with current or near future technology) is well known. Its called Ethernet and the methods to do triple play and open access are well documented not to mention already in wide spread use. Trying to enforce a layer 1 approach would be more expensive than the attempts to make this work with Packet Over SONET or even ATM. What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? What problem are you tying to solve? On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > >> The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. > >> If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away > >> (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are > >> 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home > >> runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of > >> GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my assessment > >> is correct or not... > > > > Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit > > fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? > > Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible > L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier > to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. > > Owen > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
t; themselves provision and install GPON splitters and something like a Calix > E7 -- such hardware will be installed by the City, and cost-shared; if/when > such a provider gets big enough, they can install their own, and we'll > cut them over. > > > I propose to take the project to the council for funding and approval > having in my pocket a letter of intent from a local 2nd tier ISP of > long standing to become our launch provider, with no incentives over > the published rates except the guarantee of additional subscribers. > > > My underlying motivation, which is intended to answer any tradeoff queries > which I haven't explicitly addresses before this point, is to increase > the City's position as being "full service" (as small as it is, it does > it's own fire, police, garbage and water already), and improve it's > chances of selection by people who are deciding where to move. The City > already has a relatively good image, within its target market, but as > time marches ever forwards, the maximum available broadband in its > footprint will become less and less acceptable, and I expect that there > are a significant number of people around the country for whom "I can > get Gigabit in my house? Bidirectional? I'm moving" is a valid viewpoint. > > I know already that "what kind of broadband can I get" is a top-5, and > sometimes top-3 selection issue for people contemplating a move. > > Things, therefore, which improve the city's image with potential > immigrants, > be they residents or small businesses, are a Good Thing, whether because > those people actually want or need those services, or whether it's merely > because they like to bask in the reflected glow there of. > > These things will likely reduce the city's vacancy rate, and thus increase > property tax revenue and hence the city's budget, in addition to slowly > improving the city's socioeconomic demographics, which will itself likely > have a salutary effect on the small businesses already here, and in the > decision processes of people thinking to move one here or start one. > > > That's my thinking so far. Now comes the hard part: assembling enough > other budgetary numbers to determine how much it will cost, how much we'll > have to charge, and whether people will *pay* that much. > > I don't have any illusions that the wholesale charges will be a revenue > stream for the City, and I won't let the council get any such ideas either; > the benefits to the city (aside from dark fiber to all our own buildings) > are a bit deeper than that, and will require sufficient time to come to > fruition. > > > I wrote this as a summary for all the helpful NANOGers who chimed in this > week, and as a clarification for those who weren't quite sure where *I* > was trying to go -- all muni builds are sui generis, and this one moreso > than most. > > If any of you see anything we've already said, but I left out, please > let me know... > > And have a Whacky Weekend. If any of you pass through the west coast > enroute to ORL, let me know. :-) > > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jay, I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these kinds of networks. 1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in mind that port density may or may not be relevant to your situation since space for muni shelves isn't usually a problem. Port density is much more important if you're deploying in existing telco enclosures but muni networks tend (not universally of course) to reuse existing city infrastructure building to house the nodes of their network. Please note that I am not reccomending against Calix, they're a good solution in many cases, but AE is not a strong point on the C7. The E7 and the B series, which is the old Occam product, is much better than the C7. For that matter I wouldn't consider doing a new build on the C7 since that platform's EoL can't be too far in the future. 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Scott Helms" > > > Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? > > What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you > > this is a good architecture for their PON offering? > > Asked and answered, Scott; have you been ignoring the threads all week? > > I'm pretty sure I even answered it in the posting, but just in case: > > 1) Line cards for the OLT frames appear to be 2 orders of magnitude denser > for GPON termination than AE (480 ports per 10U vs 10k ports per 10U in > Calix, unless I've badly misunderstood my sources), and > > 2) GPON is what potential L3 providers large enough to want an optical > handoff are generally used to. > > If someone wants AE, they can certainly have it. > > (C'mon; miss the *next* turn, too :-) > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
> I hope I said "E7"; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to > stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; > I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project > just to beginning of build, at this point, likely. > > Assuming I get the gig at all. > The E7 is a good shelf, so that's a decent starting point. I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I'd also focus much more on your cost per port than the density since your uptake rate will be driven by economics long before port density and how much space your gear takes becomes an issue. > > > 2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly > > incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder > > in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but > > ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate > that > > kind of connection. > > Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the > largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves > more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else. > I'm not sure what you mean by this. The largest PON offering in the US is Verizon's FIOS, but AFAIK they don't interconnect with anyone at layer 2 and their layer 3 fiber connections are either Packet Over SONET, Gig E(most common), or very occasionally still ATM. I have heard of a few instances where they'd buy existing GPON networks but I've never heard of them cross connecting like this even with operators that they do significant business with in other ways. > > But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF > and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV > delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, > I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. > This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > > A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the > foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple > not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal > open access network (with current or near future technology) is well known. > Its called Ethernet and the methods to do triple play and open access are > well documented not to mention already in wide spread use. Trying to > enforce a layer 1 approach would be more expensive than the attempts to > make this work with Packet Over SONET or even ATM. > > What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? > What problem are you tying to solve? > > > Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not sure > why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. > > Owen > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: >> > >> >> The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. >> >> If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away >> >> (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are >> >> 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home >> >> runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of >> >> GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my >> assessment >> >> is correct or not... >> > >> > Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit >> > fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? >> >> Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible >> L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier >> to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. >> >> Owen >> >> >> > > > -- > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro ethernet switches. On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, "Brandon Ross" wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: > > I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no >> other reason but get the best pricing you can. >> > > I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you > a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service > provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll > want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and > DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. > We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type > of gear. > > -- > Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: > BrandonNRoss > +1-404-635-6667ICQ: > 2269442 > Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: > brandonross >
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Owen, I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain that. ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (>95% in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. On Feb 2, 2013 4:54 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing > what I am saying. > > I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have described, > the purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other technology. > > I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON only system. That was > never the goal. > > The goal is to provide a municipal L1 service that can be used by ANY > provider for ANY service, or as close to that as possible. > > To make the offering more attractive to low-budget providers, the system > may also incorporate some L2 services. > > Owen > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > > Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you > want to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but > trying to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work > because PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols. > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the >> foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple >> not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal >> open access network (with current or near future technology) is well known. >> Its called Ethernet and the methods to do triple play and open access are >> well documented not to mention already in wide spread use. Trying to >> enforce a layer 1 approach would be more expensive than the attempts to >> make this work with Packet Over SONET or even ATM. >> >> What is about a normal Ethernet deployment that you see as a negative? >> What problem are you tying to solve? >> >> >> Ethernet works just fine in the L1 solution I've proposed, so I'm not >> sure why you say it isn't economically viable to do so. >> >> Owen >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >>> >>> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: >>> > >>> >> The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas. >>> >> If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away >>> >> (52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are >>> >> 2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km fiber pair length total) of home >>> >> runs was cheaper than the savings on fiber, and then the cost of >>> >> GPON splitters and equipment. I'm trying to figure out if my >>> assessment >>> >> is correct or not... >>> > >>> > Is there any specific reason why muni networks don't use 1-10 GBit >>> > fiber mesh, using L3 switches in DSLAMs on every street corner? >>> >>> Well, one reason is that, IMHO, the goal here is to provide a flexible >>> L1 platform that will allow multiple competing providers a low barrier >>> to entry to provide a multitude of competitive services. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Scott Helms >> Vice President of Technology >> ZCorum >> (678) 507-5000 >> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > > >
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jay, While its certainly technically possible to offer linear video in a shared network model the content owners have big objections of that. There really is no way to do wholesale IPTV except for a very few organizations like the cable coop (NCTC http://www.nctconline.org/). On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Brandon Ross" > > > > 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and > > > resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so > > > they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I > > > had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of > > > their own triple-play. > > > > So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from > > running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? > That > > seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's "hard"? > > No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers > wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else. > > > Running a decent layer 3 service is "hard" too. Isn't the whole point to > > let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and > > cost of their services? > > You could say the same thing about the uplink, though; I note you didn't > throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you? > > Fair point. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
> > > Owen > > I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions > > for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective > > method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and > requires > > compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap > > enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain > > that. > > That's my fundamental design assumption, and you're the first person to > throw a flag on it. I'm hearing $700 per passing and $600 per sub; those > seem sustainable numbers for a 30 year service life amortization. > > I'm not yet 100% clear if that's layer 1 only or layer 2 agg as well. > OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end users are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to be connected to a central location so you can interconnect to other providers (your ISP customers) and/or to connect to the Internet if the city is also going to provide direct L3 services. If you instead push down a L1 path then the most expensive pieces of gear in the access network (the FTTx shelves) have to be replicated by everyone who wants to offer services. This bad not just from the initial cost perspective but because people and companies that identify themselves as ISPs seldom know anything beyond Ethernet and IP and then only in a few manufacturers (mainly Cisco and Juniper). They are most certainly not comfortable working with Calix, Adtran, and the rest of the carrier (formerly telco) equipment manufacturers. To make matters more complicated in cases of problems you don't have a good demarcation of responsibility. What do you do as the L1 provider when one of your ISP partners tells you one of his customers can't connect or stay connected to that ISP's gear? Whose responsible in that case? What happens when your tech goes out with an OTDR ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_time-domain_reflectometer) meter and says the connection is fine but your ISP insists its your problem? > > [ And note that for me, it's practical; most everyone else is merely > along for the ride. ] > > > ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (>95% > > in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there > > is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its > > hard. > > You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over > it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. > What I'm telling you is that you can't reliably have L1 clients in shared model. You can of course lease someone a dark fiber from point A to point B, but that's not a traditional way of partnering with ISPs and in any case will only be feasible for a small number of connections since you (probably) can't afford to home run each location in your network. > > > The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing > > and its > > not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. > > You just changed gears again, no? > > I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible > to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a time. > That's what I'm trying to tell you can't do. Its more expensive in both the initial and long term costs. > > > The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost > > effective > > and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long > > term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. > > Depends on what you're trying to do. But yes, I do know the difference > between CAPEX and OPEX. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
tand what they're doing. 2) Unless you can home run every single connection you're going to run into a lot of access related issues. You will be working for the city so they won't have a problem with you getting into their building at the water tower/sewage treatment plant/power sub station or other city owned property. Your L1 customer isn't going to have that access (not with the city manager/mayor/council's knowledge anyway) because of regulatory and liability reasons. If you do home run everything you still have an access challenge (where are you going to be able to give access to these customers economically?) but its probably more solvable since its one spot. You also increase your costs by home running each connection, but that may or may not be a deal breaker in your situation. 3) Your going to have to do a lot more work since at L1 all of the rough edges and sharp corners are there to be dealt (like someone grabbing the wrong cable from the patch panel) there is simply no inexpensive method of safeguarding L1 adds, changes, and modifies so either you do them or you let your L1 customer do them and run a risk. This is also something that the city management is going to have concerned over. 4) Physical layer troubleshooting is much harder than layer 2 and up. Having several organizations and potentially several different equipment vendors and L2 technologies will be very tough to deal with over time. 5) I've seen at least 5 muni networks try this and not succeed. If you include non-muni networks with similar characteristics (like EMCs) then I've seen it tried more than a dozen times with no success (or interest) beyond a few dark fiber set ups for point to point connections across town. > > >You can of course lease someone a dark fiber from point A to point > > B, but that's not a traditional way of partnering with ISPs and in any > > case will only be feasible for a small number of connections since you > > (probably) can't afford to home run each location in your network. > > Well, I'll have to see on that, won't I? That's my next practicality > checkpoint; fiber passing costs. > > > > > The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 > > > > sharing and its > > > > not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes > > > > that. > > > > > > You just changed gears again, no? > > > > > > I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible > > > to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a > > > time. > > > That's what I'm trying to tell you can't do. Its more expensive in > > both the initial and long term costs. > > I can see 'initial', maybe, but if I reduce the utility of the field > network by putting active equipment in it, then I've already raised the > OPEX, substantially, as well as reducing the intrinsic value of that > network. > I think you're vastly overestimating the desire that customers have for a bare fiber. Having said that, your community may be different from what I've experienced. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Jason, Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that used the modulated RF approach. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, "Scott Helms" wrote: > > > .. > > > This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK > modulation > > and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. > In > > fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( > > http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists > how a > > DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look > at > > Jay may be referring to something I alluded to earlier, what Calix refers > to as RF overlay. The RF signal from the traditional cable system is > converted to 1550nm and combined onto the PON before the splitter with a > CWDM module. Certain model ONT's split the 1550 back off and convert back > to an RF port. > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
The difference between building a ring and then dropping connections and home running all of the connections is much more than difference in fiber count. However, its certainly true that home running works in some greenfield deployments and I hope I have not confused anyone on that point. A detailed look at the area to be covered along with the goals of the network will definitely drive you in the correct deployment model. This should be one of the first things you do. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay > Ashworth wrote: > > > From: "Robert E. Seastrom" > > > There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized > > > splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are > > > pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which > > > adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build. > > > > Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple > others. > > > > But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to > > home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially > infeasible. > > Note, both are right, depending on the starting point and goals. > > Historically teclos have installed (relatively) low count fiber > cables, based on a fiber to the pedistal and copper to the prem > strategy. If you have one of these existing deployments, the cost > of home run fiber (basically starting the fiber build from scratch, > since the count is so low) is more expensive, and much greater cost > than deploying GPON or similar over the existing plant. > > However, that GPON equipment will have a lifespan of 7-20 years. > > In a greenfield scenario where there is no fiber in the ground the > cost is in digging the trench. The fiber going into it is only ~5% > of the cost, and going from a 64 count fiber to a 864 count fiber > only moves that to 7-8%. The fiber has a life of 40-80 years, and > thus adding high count is cheaper than doing low count with GPON. > > Existing builds are optimizing to avoid sending out the backhoe and > directional boring machine. New builds, or extreme forward thinking > builds are trying to send them out once and never again. > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
> If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield > build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography > covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to > make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a > central point. There are geographies where that is both true, and > not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're model is > cheaper for a majority of builds. > Agreed, there are definitely scenarios where home running everything makes sense. > > On the other hand, I am not nearly as interested in minimizing the > up front capital cost. It's an issue, sure, but I care much more > about the total lifecycle cost. I'd rather spend 20% more up front > to end up with 20-80% lower costs over 50 years. My argument is > not that high count fiber back to a central location is cheaper in > absolute, up front dollars, but that it's at worst a minimal amount > more and will have neglegable additonal cost over a 40-80 year > service life. > Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to replace gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can extend your ring when you need. > > > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms > wrote: > > Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably > going > > to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that > you > > didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and > > businesses in your area your chances of getting both the numbers right > > _and_ the locations are pretty slim. Also, you're going to have to > replace > > gear no matter where it is core or nodes on a ring. Granted gear that > > lives in a CO can be less expensive but its not that much of a difference > > (~1% of gear costs). Having a ring topology is basically the best way > > we've come up with as of yet to hedge your bets, especially since you can > > extend your ring when you need. > > I'm not sure I understand your growth argument; both models will > require additional build costs for growth to the network, and I > think they roughly parallel the tradeoff's we've been discussing. > Yes, but the reason why a ring with nodes is often the better architecture is because while both situations require more fiber to accomidate growth in areas that didn't previously have customers the distance from $new_area to existing ring is going to be shorter almost invariably than the distance from $new_area to CO. This matters not only from the stand point of it costs a certain amount per mile to bury or hang fiber but also because of right of ways and other hurdles that involve getting from point A to point B. > > As for the gear, I agree that the cost per port for the equipment > providing service (Ethernet switch, GPON bits, WDM mux, whatever) > is likely to be roughly similar in a CO and in the field. There's > not a huge savings on the gear itself. > > But I would strongly disagree the overall costs, and services are > similar. Compare a single CO of equipment to a network with 150 > pedistals of active gear around a city. The CO can have one > generator, and one battery bank. Most providers don't even put > generator with each pedistal, and must maintain separate battery > banks for each. A single CO could relatively cheaply have 24x7x356 > hands to correct problems and swap equipment, where as the distributed > network will add drive time to the equation and require higher > staffing and greater costs (like the truck and fuel). > Absolutely, getting a separate power meter for each enclosure, dealing with batteries there, and just remote gear all increases operational costs and the more nodes you have the greater that cost will be. > > Geography is a huge factor though. My concept of home running all fiber > would be an extremely poor choice for extremely rural, low density > networks. Your ring choice would be much, much better. On the flip > side, in a high density world, say downtown NYC, my dark fiber to the > end user network is far cheaper than building super-small rings and > maintaining the support gear for the equipment (generators and > batteries, if you can get space for them in most buildings). > > Still, I think direct dark fiber has lower lifecycle costs for 70-80% of > the population living in cities and suburban areas. > This is where the math gets hard and the specifics of each situation dictate what you need to do. IF you know precisely what your service area can be and that area is already densely populated then you're probably going to be able to cover all of that area with a single build. Downtown NYC is a scenario I'd completely agree with since you probably would also struggle trying to find places to install enclosures and you have a very tightly defined area that is densely populated today. I'd also say that this is not the normal muni network in the US today, since generally speaking muni networks spring up where the local area is poorly served by commercial operators. > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Frank, I don't know off hand, but it ought to be easy even though Ethernet uses a wider "channel" than most PON set ups. I'll do some asking tomorrow. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Scott: > > Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE? > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM > To: NANOG > Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband > > > But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF > > and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV > > delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just > block-upconvert, > > I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout. > > This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation > and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In > fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( > http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a > DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at > the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different > approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply > modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in > fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on > the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another > approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened > to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS > and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they > launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because > that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may > be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to > cable signaling but that's not how it works. > > > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > > j...@baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC > > 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > > Rover DII > > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > > 1274 > > > > > > -- > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > ---- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > > > > -- > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500, > Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it > > actually connect every home ? > > I would argue, in a pure dark muni-network, the muni would run the > fiber into the prem to a patch panel, and stop at that point. I > believe for fiber it should be inside the prem, not outside. The > same would apply for both residential and commercial. > > Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but > not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would > OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the > prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance > of the fiber between those two end points. > Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail. > The customer (again, typically the service provider) would then > plug in any CPE, be it an ONT, or ethernet SFP, or WDM mux. > > Note I say typically the service provider, because I want to enable > in this model the ability for you and I, if we both have homes in > this area, to pay the same $X/month and get a patch between our two > homes. No service provider involved. If we want to stand up GigE > on it because that's cheap, wonderful. If we want to stand up > 16x100GE WDM, excellent as well. > > It's very similar to me to the traditional copper model used by the > ILECs. There is a demark box that terminates the outside plant and > allows the customer to connect the inside plant. The facilities > provider stops at that box (unless you pay them to do more, of > course). The provisioning process I'm advocating is substantially > similar to ordering a "dry pair" in the copper world, although perhaps > with a bit more customer service since it would be a service the muni > wants to sell! > Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason. > > > In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow > > Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in > > homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is > > responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either > > homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking > > the ONT out to be returned to the SP. > > The box is the demark. If they damage something on the customer > side, that's their own issue. If the damage something on the > facilities provider side, the facilities provider will charge them > to fix it. > > There would be no "just coming out of the wall". There would be a 6-12 > SC (FC?) connector patch panel in a small plastic enclosure, with the > outside plant properly secured (conduit, in the wall, etc) and not > exposed. The homewowner or their service provider would plug into that > patch panel. > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?)
Absolutely muni networks can work. I'm supporting ~14 right now with an aggregate number of connections of around 40k (most are small). Having said that from my view (I work with telco's, cable MSOs, muni, and other network providers) muni networks fail more often than private networks. This is usually because they lack experience and their process is subject to interference by interested parties. In one case recently a muni network had a full page ad taken out by a operator who didn't want the city to build. That ad in the local paper caused lots of controversy, despite being largely inaccurate, and the controversy caused the city council to change the rules for the city at the last minute. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, John Osmon wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > [...] > > People are doing this, and it does work, it's just being done in > > locations the big telcos and cablecos have written off... > > To re-iterate this point, and get a note into the archives -- Muni > networks *can* work. > > Idaho Falls, ID has been offering dark fiber strands to anyone since > 2007 or so: > http://www.ifcirca.net/ > > When I last had network in the area, the cost was on the order of: >- $1500/month/loop >- $20/bldg on loop >- one-time construction costs > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions > for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective > method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires > compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap > enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain > that. ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (>95% in > my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there is no > clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its hard. > > ?? > > Who said anything about sharing the network at L1? > You did. > > Is it more expensive to home-run every home than to put splitters in the > neighborhood? Yes. Is it enough more expensive that the tradeoffs cannot be > overcome? I remain unconvinced. > This completely depends on the area and the goals of the network. In most cases for muni networks back hauling everything is more expensive. > > I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to delineate the > responsibilities… You've got a fiber path maintained by the municipality > with active equipment maintained by the ISP at each end. If the light > coming out of the equipment at one end doesn't come out of the fiber at the > other end, you have a problem in the municipality's domain. If the light > makes it through in tact, you have a problem in the ISP's domain. > > There is equipment available that can test that fairly easily. > OK, this one made my wife get scared I laughed so hard. You clearly have never tried to do this or had to work with different operators in the same physical network. Please, go talk to someone whose worked in the field of a FTTx network and describe this scenario to them. Its clear you don't want to hear it from me via email so please go do some research. > The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing and > its not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. > The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost > effective and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in > the long term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber > install. > > We can agree to disagree. A muni network needs to be able to recover its > costs. The costs of building out and maintaining home-run > fiber are not necessarily that much greater than the costs of building out > and maintaining fiber at the neighborhood. One option, for > example, would be to have neighborhood B-Boxes where the fiber can either > be fed into provider-specific splitters (same economy > as existing PON deployments) or cross-connected to fiber on the F1 cable > going back to the MMR (home-run). > > We can agree all we want, that doesn't change history. Handing out connections at layer 1 is both more expensive and less efficient. Its also extremely wasteful (which is why its more expensive) since your lowest unit you can sell is a fiber strand whether the end customer wants a 3 mbps connection or a gig its the same to the city. I'm not saying you shouldn't sell dark fiber, I'm saying that in 99% of the cities you can't build a business model around doing just that unless your city doesn't want to break even on the build and maintenance. > The only additional cost in this system over traditional PON is the larger > number of fibers required in the F1 cable. > > PON networks aren't deployed this way and if you're going to backhaul all of the connections to a central point you wouldn't run PON. PON is worse in every performance related way to PON and the only reasons operators deploy it today is because its less expensive. Its less expensive because you don't have to backhaul all of the connections or have active components at the neighborhood level. > Owen > > > On Feb 2, 2013 4:54 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing >> what I am saying. >> >> I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have >> described, the purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other >> technology. >> >> I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON only system. That was >> never the goal. >> >> The goal is to provide a municipal L1 service that can be used by ANY >> provider for ANY service, or as close to that as possible. >> >> To make the offering more attractive to low-budget providers, the syste
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I > wanted to address these specifically. > > I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the Australia > NBN project does as well. > > I would say that the Swedish model is a definite success. > Australia's NBN is still the planning and arguing phase. Sweden is most certainly not a string of muni networks, the dominant form of access there is cable without open access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Sweden You might have meant another European country and there are several that traditionally have had good open access networks but they are NOT fiber nor are they muni run. Across much of Europe the telco's have been forced to open their DSL networks to other operators and in many countries they cannot be the layer 3 provider. This has lead to a robust set of open DSL networks using PPPoE. The problem is that the same rules have NOT been applied to fiber networks (in large part because of technical issues, some genuine and others less so). The fiber networks are largely run by the telcos themselves, but these are new deployments and so the numbers of fiber connections in Europe is quite low. > > Owen > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
Joe, I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms wrote: > > > Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason. > > Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are > always wrong, no doubt including this one. > > > Joe (putting the N back in NANOG) -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Scott Helms" > > > > Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but > > > not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would > > > OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the > > > prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable > > > performance of the fiber between those two end points. > > > > Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, > > Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there > > lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested > > anything here that I haven't already seen fail. > > So let me be clear, here, because I'm semi-married to this idea... > > You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical per-sub > handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because > I'm saying you can't build a working business model off of layer 1 connections as your primary offering in almost all cases for a muni network. I am hedging my bet here because I don't know your city's topology, density, growth, goals or a hundred other factors that might make you the 1 exception to the rule. > > a) the circuits can't be built reliably, > b) the circuits won't run reliably over the long run, > c) if something *does break*, it's hard or expensive to determine where, or > d) each side will say it's the other side's fault, and things won't get > fixed? > > Let me see if I can explain it, since clearly I'm not getting my thoughts down in my emails well enough. a) You WILL have physical layer issues. Some of these issues will be related to the initial construction of the fiber. b) Other problems will because of changes that occur over time. These could be weather related (especially for aerial cable), but also vehicle hits to fiber cabinets, and occasionally fires. Depending on your location earthquakes, flooding, and other extreme "weather" may also be a factor. c) No, WHEN something breaks it is hard and expensive to figure out where. This is true even if you're the layer 2 provider but it gets you out of the problem of it works $A_provider_gear but not $B_provider_gear. You're going to drive yourself nuts troubleshooting connections IF you do sign up several partners especially if they choose different technologies. d) No, it will always be your fault until you can prove its not. If you don't know how to troubleshoot the technology your L2 partners are using how can you ever do anything but accept their word that they have everything set up correctly? > I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and > my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so > I assume you have to mean (d). > There are lots of differences, especially related to troubleshooting. Remember, all of these devices are doing phase modulation (QAM, QPSK, etc) so a simple OTDR test (which is similar to checking SNR on a RF system) doesn't show many of the problems that prevent data connectivity on high speed connections. > > > Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason. > > Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want > you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could > charge you a lot more money for. > > You assert a technical reason? > Most of this is because the ILECs have gotten the regulations changed but they successfully used some legitimate technical reasons (and other less legitimate arguments) to get those rules changed. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Scott Helms > wrote: > > > Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but > > > not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would > > > OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the > > > prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance > > > of the fiber between those two end points. > > > > Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, > > Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots > > of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything > > here that I haven't already seen fail. > > Zayo (nee AboveNet/MFN), Sunesys, Allied Fiber, FiberTech Networks, > and a dozen smaller dark fiber providers work this way today, with > nice healthy profitable business. Granted, none of them are in the > residential space today, but I don't see any reason why the prem > being residential would make the model fail. > All of these guys do sell dark fiber AND other services including their own L3 offerings. I'm not telling anyone to avoid selling dark fiber. I'm telling you that its not what you can, in the vast majority of the cases, build as your primary offering. Your examples really support my stance much more than yours. > > Plenty of small cities sell dark as well, at least until the incumbant > carriers scare/bribe the legislatures into outlawing it. I think that's > evidence it works well, they know they can't compete with a muni > network, so they are trying to block it with legal and lobbying efforts. > Most of the state legislation (in fact, I can't think of an exception to this) is specifically aimed at preventing muni networks from offering layer 2 and layer 3 services. I can't say that there isn't an exception to this, but in 45+ states there isn't anything on the books on a dark fiber network owned by a city. > > They all cost a lot more than would make sense for residential, but > most of that is that they lack the economies of scale that going > to every residence would bring. Their current density of customers > is simply too low. > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
ompetitive position was made up, to a greater or lesser degree. > > Many of them were public companies, and had open access imposed on them > (some would say unfairly; I waver), and it's *expected* that this would > be the case, but still... > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: muni L1 example (WAS: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?)
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon wrote: > Scott -- you've brought up *great* info for this thread. We all know > that city/county/state/federal governments sometimes throw money away on > boondoggles (as fiber could become). You've been able to pull from your > direct experience to show how this is true. > > > I threw in Idaho Falls because I'm betting it will help someone doing > research in the future. Can you throw out some of the positive > examples you've run across? > > Jason, the best cases I've seen were all those scenarios where if the muni didn't build the access it simply wouldn't happen. I've seen lots of different kinds of technologies used ranging from wireless (not 802.11), to DOCSIS cable (this is actually the most common in the US), and fiber. I can't share my customer's names unfortunately, but the successful ones all shared several things in common: 1) They had specific goals and built the network to reach those goals. In all the "good" situations the networks at least pay for themselves and in some places make a small profit. 2) They have personnel dedicated to their broadband offering that are motivated to make it succeed and the city listens to the technical and operational recommendations of that staff. 3) They focus on a relatively small number of products, generally either just L3 services or L3 services and broadcast video (especially for DOCSIS systems). 4) They get their pricing "right". This last point is perhaps the most important but hardest to do well. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Is Google Fiber a model for Municipal Networks?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > I've been searching for a few days on information about Google > Fiber's Kansas City deployment. While I wouldn't call Google > secretive in this particular case, they haven't been very outgoing > on some of the technologies. Based on the equipment they have deployed > there is speculation they are doing both GPON and active thernet > (point2point). > > I found this presentation: > > http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf > > Its active ethernet. They looked at PON but ultimately rejected it since it fell below their speed goals (can't do gig connections on any flavor of PON today). Here is the architecture document: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/36936.pdf > It has a very good summary of the tradeoffs we've been discussing > regarding home run fibers with active ethernet compared with GPON, > including costs of the eletronics compared to trenching, the space > required in the CO, and many of the other issues we've touched on > so far. > > Here's an article with some economics from several different > deployments: > http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4835-fiber-economics-quick-and-dirty > > Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold > standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are two > providers doing FTTH they are both going to max at about a 50% take > rate. By having one provider, a 70-80% take rate can be driven. > > Even with us a 4%, 10 year government bond, a muni network could finance > out a $700/prem build for $7.09 per month! Add in some overhead and > there's no reason a muni-network couldn't lease FTTH on a cost recovery > bases to all takers for $10-$12 a month (no Internet or other services > included). > > Anyone know of more info about the Google Fiber deployment? > The biggest factor that Google has going for them is they are their own gear manufacturer, both the in home stuff and the access network. They invited several manufacturers to test but then sent them all packing. They are doing a ring (actually several rings) of Ethernet with nodes that then connect down to the neighborhood level. > > -- >Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
Mark, That's true but none (AFAIK) of those connections are being built by muni's and all of the hand offs are done to the ISPs at layer 2. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message < > camrdfrw6b3+spovj3w0xnvqkxgse6zb5hglicqx4kgzxpe7...@mail.gmail.com> > , Scott Helms writes: > > I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I > > > wanted to address these specifically. > > > > > > I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the > Australia > > > NBN project does as well. > > > > > > I would say that the Swedish model is a definite success. > > > > > > > Australia's NBN is still the planning and arguing phase. > > They may still be arguing, but there are fiber and fixed wireless > customers receiving packets. > > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
