[160207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Sat Feb 2 13:47:18 2013
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:47:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <510D59D6.2040906@nic-naa.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
> The L0 (ROW, poles & conduits) provider, and
> in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and
> in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider,
> aka "City"
> is also a consumer of "City 2 City" service above L2, and
> is also a consumer of "City 2 Subscriber" services above L2.
>
> Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's
> L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude "City" as a provider.
The City will be it's own customer for L1 ptp between our facilities,
yes. We will also be a customer of the L1 service to provide the L2
service, and that MRC cost-recovery will be included in the L2 cost.
While I realize that we could in turn be a competing L3 provider as a
customer of the L1/2 provider, I'm loathe to go there if I'm not actually
forced to; even moreso than the L2 bump, that's a *big* increase in
labor and hence costs, in addition to which I've been convinced here
that potential L3 providers will be less likely not to assume The Fix
Is In in that case; the City's L3 provider getting an unfair break.
If I can't get an LOI as suggested in the posting I just put up, then
we may need to be the provider-of-last-resort, at a higher cost to continue
to make coming in and competing as a provider.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
