[151579] 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 13:12:24 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <02f301cd09f7$45dc73e0$d1955ba0$@iname.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:44:08 -0700
To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
Cc: "<nanog@nanog.org>" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That is why I believe that the L1 buildout should be done by or under contra=
ct to the local authority (whether that be a municipality, county, special d=
istrict, or whatever) and then leased to L2+ service providers on an equal c=
ost per subscriber basis.
Now it doesn't matter which subscribers cost more or less to build out, they=
all cost the same to serve. Yes, the more expensive subscribers are being s=
ubsidized by the less expensive ones. Overall, I don't really have a problem=
with this as I don't think that the discrepancies within a given authority a=
rea will be that large. I do think that we should require each authority to b=
uild out to all end sites within their jurisdiction not served by a smaller a=
uthority.
For example, Contra Cost County, California would be required to build out E=
l Sobrante (unincorporated area of the county), but, not Pinole, Rodeo, Croc=
kett, Hercules, etc. (since they would be required to be built out by their c=
ities).
Yes, it's likely that the L2+ providers would have a higher cost per custome=
r to serve El Sobrante than to serve the cities. However, since that increas=
ed cost would apply equally to all L2+ providers, it would easily be passed o=
n to those subscribers and they would, therefore end up paying roughly the t=
rue cost of their choice to live in an unincorporated lower-density area.
Yes, higher-density authorities would have a better chance of attracting gre=
ater competition and diversity in L2+ providers. However, nothing would prev=
ent or exclude smaller authorities from working out colocation deals with ne=
arby larger (or even groups of smaller) authorities and bringing the termina=
tion points of multiple authorities together in the same location. Likewise,=
nothing would prevent authorities from building inexpensive backhaul facili=
ties to adjacent larger centers.
If you cleanly separate the L1 infrastructure from the L2+ services provider=
s, you really do have opportunities to do better for the subscriber base ove=
rall.
Yes, the L1 buildout will cost slightly more than an optimal monopoly build-=
out by a service provider. However, that small increase in cost yields huge b=
enefits on the other side in terms of reduced barriers to competition, incre=
ased diversity, and more price pressure on the L2+ services side of things.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:49 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
>> =46rom my own experience in my $DAYJOB, separating capital decisions at t=
he L1
> and L2 layers would end up adding cost. As mentioned elsewhere, GPON and
> similar shared medium approaches do not lend themselves well to structural=
> separation. The most practical approach is dark fiber runs from the
> customer to as few centralized places as possible. The CLEC would co-loca=
te
> their equipment at those centralized places. The CLEC is then free to use=
> ActiveE, GPON, whatever-the-next-gen-of-PON. =20
>=20
> Structural separation works best when the cost to build to a customer are
> roughly the same. Wherever there's significant disparaties, those will be
> exploited and people will overbuild to the highest-margin/lowest cost
> customers to avoid the averaged cost of L1 network.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]=20
> 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)
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
> It doesn't promote local monopoly if you don't allow the L1 company to
> provide L2+ services.
>=20
> 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 co=
st
> per customer.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
>=20
