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
at 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 12:52 PM
> > To: NANOG
> > Subject: Muni
- 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
It varies from state to state ...
In Maine, we've run an E-rate filing consortium for several years that uses
E-rate funds and makes up the difference with a
state telecommunications tax so schools and libraries don't need to pay for
service.
Up until a year or two ago, Verizon was always contrac
-Original Message-
From: david peahi [mailto:davidpe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 1:54 PM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
>I have discovered that the Federal School Lunch E-Rate program
I have discovered that the Federal School Lunch E-Rate program has built
out an entirely parallel fiber optic infrastructure in the USA, bypassing
telco fiber in many urban areas such as Los Angeles/Southern California.
There are now companies that exist solely to construct E-Rate fiber.
Sunesys is
Here in Maine, after seeing no strong proposals were being put forward by
others, we went after American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to
address a major lack of middle-mile infrastructure in the state.
Verizon had stopped making new investments in Maine for nearly 10 years
before pulling ou
> -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
ajority 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 12:52 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject:
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
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Michael Painter"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
That's the national definition of "broadband" that we're stuck with. To show
ho
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
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
>
>
>
> Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.
>
> The *right*, long term solution to
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
>
>
>
> Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.
>
> The *right*, long term solutio
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:42:36PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark
> fiber options for a potential opportunity, but you have to remind yourself
> don't have a *right* to know where *private* fiber is. It's not just the
> physic
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
12:52 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.
The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for
municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even
subbed out to a contractor to
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
I'm trying to do just that right now, actually. 55 s. market to
250 Stockton in San Jose. I dono if it's five thousand feet, but
it's not tw
: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
So do a quick research on USF and see who gets paid from it...
Please don't read this if you have just eaten.. you might puke ..
http://connectedplanetonline.com/commentary/real-story-usf-data-071510/
http://republicans.
USF is more of a free for all get ISPs to build in 80% of the locations that
nobody would build in their right mind vs a mini monopoly model for l2 that I
equate this with.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong wrote:
We've been funding it for year
We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in
which it has been funded.
I suggest you look into USF in more detail.
Owen
On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Joseph Snyder wrote:
> Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to
> govt fun
For those who didn't Google it.
http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en/knowledge-center/case-studies/amsterdam-city-fiber-project-analysis
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Joseph Snyder wrote:
Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going
Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing
>> a fiber.
>> Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous
>> transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols.
>
> Hm... i'm thinking one transceiver might malfunction and get
> stuck/frozen i
Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to
govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly
that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my b
Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k.
It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and
most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a
mile or two long.
Marcel Plug wrote:
This article from arst
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:08:11 -0400, Marcel Plug said:
> This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the
> city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me
> this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right
> way..
Cue somebody denouncing
Paul Graydon wrote:
To be fair to the initiative at least its goal is for universal access
to 1Gbps by 2018, something they term 'ultra-high-speed' (not sure where
that definition comes from): http://hawaii.gov/gov/broadband-policy-outline/
Paul
A lofty goal to be sure, the biggest challenge
This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the
city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me
this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right
way..
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-acces
2012/3/22 Masataka Ohta :
> William Herrin wrote:
> The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing
> a fiber.
> Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous
> transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols.
Hm... i'm thinking one transceiver might malfunction
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said:
> "The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of
> the actual test result to the current NTIA
> definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any
> test result above the NTIA defini
On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 02:18 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>> what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called
>>> 'broadband' is a joke and a scam.
>>>
>>> randy
>>
>> Really. This is from the Governor's "Hawa
On 03/23/2012 02:18 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called
'broadband' is a joke and a scam.
randy
Really. This is from the Governor's "Hawaii Broadband Initiative"
speedtest website:
"The indication of above av
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:18:26PM -1000, Michael Painter wrote:
> Really. This is from the Governor's "Hawaii Broadband Initiative" speedtest
> website:
>
> "The indication of above average or below average is based on a
> comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition
> of
Randy Bush wrote:
what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called
'broadband' is a joke and a scam.
randy
Really. This is from the Governor's "Hawaii Broadband Initiative" speedtest
website:
"The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison o
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
> >>> Yes, I find it quite "amusing" that I am paying additional fees on
> >>> all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON
> >>> networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San
> >>> Jose, California.
> >> That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsid
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
So do a quick research on USF and see who gets paid from it...
Please don't read this if you have just eaten.. you might puke ..
http://connectedplanetonline.com/commentary/real-story-usf-data-071510/
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/2011usf/ResponsetoQuestion1.pdf
>>> Yes, I find it quite "amusing" that I am paying additional fees on
>>> all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON
>>> networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San
>>> Jose, California.
>> That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users
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 Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> 2012/3/22 William Herrin
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley
>> wrote:
>> > Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber?
>> > Isn't
>> > it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't
2012/3/22 William Herrin
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley
> wrote:
> > 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
> >> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
> >> > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their
> fiber
> >> > which I don't see happening unless its by force v
On 3/22/2012 3:49 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
Yes, I find it quite "amusing" that I am paying additional fees on all
of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks
in rural bumf
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>> Yes, I find it quite "amusing" that I am paying additional fees on all
>> of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks
>> in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like i
William Herrin wrote:
> PON (e.g. FIOS) is similar to CWDM.
If you are not talking about WDM PON, no, not at all.
> The PO in PON is Passive Optical.
> As in a glass prism-like device with no electronics.
The passive optical device of usual PON is not a prism but a
splitter.
The entire optics
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> Yes, I find it quite "amusing" that I am paying additional fees on all
> of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks
> in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California.
That's OK, you're a
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
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote:
>
>> Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens?
>
> They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets.
>
> - Jared
1. Do not mistake a large telco for a comm
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:12 AM, chris wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
>>
>>> I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
>>> which I don't see happening unless its by force via governme
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:31:47PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You agree on a price per distance (e.g.: mile/foot/whatnot).
>
> Lets say the cable costs $25k to install for the distance of 5000 feet.
>
> That cable has 144 strands.
>
> You need access to one strand. If you install it yourself,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
>> > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
>> > which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the
>> end
>> > of the
- Original Message -
> From: "John Kreno"
> This sharing can be done at a layer-3 or as you say at the time slot
> level or lambda level. It's no different than what is happening with
> the copper already. It's not like they have to give it away for free.
> They just have to offer it to o
-Original Message-
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:41 PM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 1
If it's done on a box owned by the incumbent then sharing has evolved into
giving away free service to competitors. It's different when copper pairs
into a house could be latched onto anyone's switch. Once you start
requiring a carrier to give away capacity in it's network that's
different. Also
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> >
> > 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
> >
> > On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
> >
> > > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their
> fiber
> > > which I don't see happening unless its by forc
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> What is there that's worth having that isn't controlled by a big company of
> some sort?
This is done in some places. eg: http://www.allband.org/
Some states place barriers to establishing a cooperative. Call your state PUC,
there are good
This sharing can be done at a layer-3 or as you say at the time slot level or
lambda level. It's no different than what is happening with the copper already.
It's not like they have to give it away for free. They just have to offer it to
other carriers at cost. This will hopefully provide more o
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
>
> > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
> > which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end
> > of the d
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens?
>
> They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets.
>
> What is there that's worth having that isn't controlled by a big company
of some s
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
>
> > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
> > which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the
> end
> > of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote:
> Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens?
They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets.
- Jared
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote:
>
> > I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
> > which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the
> end
> > of the day there needs to be the
78 matches
Mail list logo
