[151575] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Mar 25 11:37:35 2012
In-Reply-To: <02f201cd09f6$4b251a60$e16f4f20$@iname.com>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:33:40 -0700
To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Who cares?
It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal de=
ployments.
It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs m=
ore to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though somew=
hat) to subsidizing that to some extent, but, I'm tired of municipal deploym=
ents being blocked by this sense of equal entitlement to rural.
The rural builds cost more, take longer, and yield lower revenues. It makes n=
o sense to let that stand in the way of building out municipalities. Nothing=
prevents rural residents who have the means and really want their buildout p=
rioritized from building a collective to get it done.
Subsidizing rural build-out is one thing. Failing to build out municipalitie=
s because of some sense of rural entitlement? That's just stupid.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:42 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
> How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban?
>=20
> In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish t=
hey could do -- serve the most profitable customers.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
> Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.
>=20
> The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for=20
> municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even=20
> subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate...=20
>=20
> offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer can light up
> each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that=20
> customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer=20
> layer 2 or 3 service at all.
>=20
> High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power=20
> and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it
> right.
>=20
> As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own
> the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon
> (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in=20
> several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint.
>=20
> See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> I believe Google agrees with me. :-)
>=20
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>=20
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --=20
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink=
.com
> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2=
100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover=
DII
> St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1=
274
>=20
>=20
>=20
