Thanks Jacob and Alex.
Appreciate your reply.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard <
shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere
> from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1,
> and a
While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere from
2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1, and a
few that have more.) Our MWs go up to 1.6gbps. The sites aren't
provisioned a set amount of bandwidth, they can use as much as they want
(up to t
Hi
Nice discussion. Just a small question here - how much backhaul at present
2G, 3G and LTE based towers have? Just curious to hear an average number. I
agree it would be a significant difference from busy street in New York to
less crowded area say in Michigan but what sort of bandwidth telcos
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Broussard
> wrote:
> > Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years? That's the whole
> > point of what he was trying to say. Maybe wireless carriers will use
> > visible wavelength lasers t
Actual public financed non-muni fiber is skipping the easy parts and deploying
only a few of the hard parts.
(current actual results of USF)
How is that an improvement?
Owen
On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if
- Original Message -
> From: "Ray Soucy"
> Ignoring the fact that we haven't reached our limits with fiber yet
> ...
Not close, and we're at 100G already.
> The next major speed boost for broadband will be over fiber. And because
> the bottleneck at that point becomes equipment, we'll c
Ignoring the fact that we haven't reached our limits with fiber yet ...
If you're talking broadband, I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that
a fiber plant will last 20 years with minor maintenance just given the
history of how long we've used copper.
When its 2012 and you have people who a
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Broussard
wrote:
> Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years? That's the whole
> point of what he was trying to say. Maybe wireless carriers will use
> visible wavelength lasers to recievers on top of customer's houses for all
> we know. 10 year
Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years? That's the whole
point of what he was trying to say. Maybe wireless carriers will use
visible wavelength lasers to recievers on top of customer's houses for all
we know. 10 years is a LONG time for tech, and anything can happen.
On Mar 25, 20
- Original Message -
> From: "JC Dill"
> On 25/03/12 8:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47:58AM -0400, Jay
> > Ashworth wrote:
> >> Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good;
> >> if /actual/ bond financed muni fiber is
> -Original Message-
> From: joshua.kl...@gmail.com [mailto:joshua.kl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:10 AM
> To: Owen DeLong; Frank Bulk; Jay Ashworth
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives,
> etc)
>
> Bu
- Original Message -
> From: "joshua klubi"
> But they also deserve to have or enjoy the benefits that comes with
> living in the big cities
Well, "deserve" is a strong word... but the underlying thought is my
primary reason for believing that municipal fiber is a good solution, and
I'll
But they also deserve to have or enjoy the benefits that comes with living in
the big cities
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 25/03/2012 15:47 Jay Ashworth wrote:
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/
bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, i
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> their future is very uncertain. Can you promise that fiber has a
> *feasible* lifetime of 20-50 years? Maybe in 5-10 years all consumer
> data will be transferred via wireless, and investment in municipal wired
> d
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:37:24 -0700, JC Dill said:
> *feasible* lifetime of 20-50 years? Maybe in 5-10 years all consumer
> data will be transferred via wireless
And that would be using what spectrum and what technology? Consider what the
release of one Apple product did to the associated carrie
On 25/03/12 8:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47:58AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/
bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to lose.
It doesn't mat
Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:28 AM
> To: Masataka Ohta
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
>
>
>
> It doesn't promote local monopol
In a message written on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47:58AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if
> /actual/ bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to
> lose.
I agree.
If a commercial company goes in to serve fo
Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/
bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to lose.
Time to assemble some stats, I guess.
-- jra
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong wrote:
Who c
Who cares?
It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal
deployments.
It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs more
to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though somewhat) to
subsidizing that to some extent, but
Masataka Ohta
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
It doesn't promote local monopoly if you don't allow the L1 company to
provide L2+ services.
If the L1 company is required to be independent of and treat all L2+
services companies
How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban?
In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish they
could do -- serve the most profitable customers.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12
William Herrin wrote:
>> However, with time slotted PON, unbundling must be
>> at L2, which is as expensive as L3, which means
>> there effectively is no unbundling.
>
> I strongly disagree. If this were true, there would be no market for
> MPLS service: folks would simply buy Internet service an
- Original Message -
> From: "Kris Price"
> > I believe Google agrees with me. :-)
>
> Are they? Last I saw they were building out a layer 3 network -- no
> wholesale access -- did this change?
No, you're right; that was me being flippant. ("He thinks flippant is the
name of a dolphin.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>>> It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of
>>> the utilities: power, telephony or cable. He that controls
>>> the outside plant controls your fate.
On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of
>> the utilities: power, telephony or cable. He that controls
>> the outside plant controls your fate.
>
> The difference is in how the services can be unbundle
2012/3/23 Masataka Ohta :
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of
>> the utilities: power, telephony or cable. He that controls
>> the outside plant controls your fate.
>
> The difference is in how the services can be unbundled.
>
> Power is additive (if
Jared Mauch wrote:
> It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of
> the utilities: power, telephony or cable. He that controls
> the outside plant controls your fate.
The difference is in how the services can be unbundled.
Power is additive (if in phase) that network topology is
ir
It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of the utilities:
power, telephony or cable. He that controls the outside plant controls your
fate.
Jared Mauch
On Mar 23, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Kris Price wrote:
> Layer 3 is interesting, but is everyone happy with saying goodbye to the I
I believe Google agrees with me. :-)
Are they? Last I saw they were building out a layer 3 network -- no
wholesale access -- did this change?
It sorta fit with their goals in that it meant they could build a
faster/simpler network for less money and make a big/bold 1 Gbps to
every home (no
On 23/03/2012, at 4:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 --
> or even layer 2, where the municipality supplies (matching) ONTs, and
> services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data
> service.
>
> I believe Google a
31 matches
Mail list logo
