[160035] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 30 16:34:01 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUEmY6-YQ-mBNZoYLZX7wVNYX26zkd3BvWodtmr82nrZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:30:19 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
>>
>>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
>>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
>>> offering. Wholesale only.
>>>
>>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
>>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
>>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
>>> network.
>
> As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
> layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
> for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
> taxpayers.
>
Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons
to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid
limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc.
Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just
packets.
Owen
