[160227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Ross)
Sat Feb 2 17:40:19 2013
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:40:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
In-Reply-To: <5680273.4658.1359844017052.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> 6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and
> resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so
> they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I
> had gathered, it's still harder than them doing VoIP as part of their
> own triple-play.
So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from running
layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer IPTV? That
seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's "hard"?
Running a decent layer 3 service is "hard" too. Isn't the whole point to
let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and
cost of their services?
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
