[151513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 23 10:33:25 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F6C78DA.2060607@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:27:57 -0700
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> The difference is in how the services can be unbundled.
>=20
> Power is additive (if in phase) that network topology is
> irrelevant.
>=20
> For telephony, unbundling for DSL at L1 is just fine.
>=20
> So is optical fiber if single star topology is used.
>=20
> WDM PON can still be unbundled at L1.
>=20
> However, with time slotted PON, unbundling must be
> at L2, which is as expensive as L3, which means
> there effectively is no unbundling.
>=20
> Or, CLEC may rent a raw fiber at L1 and operate its
> own PON. However, as CLEC has less customer density
> to share the fiber than ILEC, CLEC's fiber cost per
> customer is higher than that of ILEC, which is why
> PON promotes local monopoly.
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 equally, then, the ILEC, CLEC, et. all have the same =
cost per customer.
Owen
