[160027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Art Plato)
Wed Jan 30 13:19:11 2013
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:18:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRyOQ0Kxy6=7UbrUyMcTSYi-fQAhO5iOo3yndsWP83QLRw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Event=
ually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the=
local electric utility.=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>=20
To: "Art Plato" <aplato@coldwater.org>=20
Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca>, nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM=20
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?=
=20
I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its=
non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator=
concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups do=
n't consider it important/viable.=20
Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though=
not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many =
of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single=
NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.=20
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato < aplato@coldwater.org > wrote:=
=20
That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with th=
e ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive mar=
ket the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old m=
onopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of ou=
r business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our ci=
tizens.=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Peter Kristolaitis" < alter3d@alter3d.ca >=20
To: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM=20
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?=
=20
There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.=20
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance=20
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer=20
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to=20
everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2=20
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but=20
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept=20
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is=20
available.=20
- Pete=20
On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:=20
> I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing =
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with=
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. W=
hen the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear tha=
t they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town thi=
s size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that=
is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play=
big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No informa=
tion without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We a=
re pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director be=
lieves that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 p=
rovider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The r=
eality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services =
will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the fi=
rst place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is curren=
tly no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive serv=
ice to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "William Herrin" < bill@herrin.us >=20
> To: "Jay Ashworth" < jra@baylink.com >=20
> Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org >=20
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM=20
> Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yar=
d?=20
>=20
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth < jra@baylink.com > wrote:=
=20
>> ----- Original Message -----=20
>>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca >=20
>>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or=
=20
>>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail=20
>>> offering. Wholesale only.=20
>>>=20
>>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not=20
>>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many=20
>>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile=20
>>> network.=20
> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at=20
> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue=20
> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the=20
> taxpayers.=20
>=20
>=20
>> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is=
=20
>> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in f=
act=20
>> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as=
=20
>> subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of=
=20
>> my municipality?=20
> Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is=20
> returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in=20
> the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering=20
> customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be=20
> had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.=20
>=20
> Regards,=20
> Bill Herrin=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Scott Helms=20
Vice President of Technology=20
ZCorum=20
(678) 507-5000=20
--------------------------------=20
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
--------------------------------=20
