[133930] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schultze)
Mon Dec 20 11:26:21 2010
From: Steve Schultze <sjs@princeton.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:26:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4D0F1795.1020902@gmail.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:45 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> =
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_=
wires447x625.jpg
>=20
> This is not the result of many different providers, it's the result of =
one provider stringing many lines to supply service. I'm guessing this =
was before they figured out how to run trunk lines and then split out =
the calls from the trunk into individual lines closer to the end user's =
location - or how to bundle lines together, etc. So each wire we see in =
that photo is a *single* wire running from the central office to one =
subscriber (or party line).
>=20
>> =
http://pinkbunnyears.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/telephone-pole.jpg
>=20
> That photo isn't due to a situation where there were numerous =
different providers, it's due to ONE provider with a monopoly, doing a =
half-assed job.
It should be noted that running an individual line from the central =
office to the subscriber can be a good thing when done in a sensible =
fashion. Amsterdam's Fiber-to-the-Home project called Citynet is an =
excellent example of this. The city ran a fiber line to each =
subscriber, which facilitates competitive open access to each line (and =
makes for maximum long-term bandwidth per subscriber).
=
http://opticalreflection.com/2009/02/amsterdam-citynet-scores-a-home-run-f=
or-fibre/
"However, the first decision the Citynet project made was more =
fundamental: should it deploy a passive optical network (PON) =
architecture or what Wagter calls =93home run=94 fibre, which is a =
point-to-point topology. PONs share fibre and equipment near the =
head-end of the network, which does result in some cost savings. But =
infrastructure sharing does not allow unbundling (allowing other service =
providers to put their equipment into the local exchange). PONs have a =
1:32 splitter in the street cabinet, which means that those 32 customers =
get locked into the same service provider =97 and that didn=92t fit with =
the city=92s plan to have an open-access network. (Regulators have =
proposed bitstream access as a solution to this problem, but it=92s more =
complicated to implement.)"
See also:
=
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-fo=
r-open-access-fiber.ars=
