[160867] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Dore)
Sat Feb 16 06:06:03 2013
From: Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E310BCB1-EF5B-48F6-9166-037606198DA5@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:05:46 +0000
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I completely agree with you on this Owen, and we were almost in that =
situation in the UK but Ofcom backed down for some reason :(
BT, as a state created monopoly, was facing being broken up with the =
local loop operations being hived off into a completely separate company =
to give all providers equal access. In the end, BT somehow managed to =
convince Ofcom to let them keep the local loop operations in-house, on =
the condition that it was in a strictly controlled child company where =
Ofcom sets a lot of the prices.
It's a much better situation than we used to have, and it has done a =
good job of opening up the local loop to competitors, but I can't help =
but feel that if it had been split off into a completely separate =
company without BT Group as the parent. At the end of the day, the money =
still goes into the same group funds and there's still going to be a lot =
of internal influence from BT in decision making.
One interesting recent development is that OpenReach are opening up =
their ducts and poles so that other providers can install their own =
fibre in/on them, but from my reading of the limitation on this it =
sounds like Active Ethernet (or similar) deployments would be impossible =
as BT/OpenReach have somehow managed to get Ofcom to agree to prevent =
any deployments that would threaten their leased line business barred:
> 3.2 The Customer warrants that it will use the Service solely for the =
deployment in the Access Network of the Customer=92s network serving =
Multiple Premises for the provision to end users of Next Generation =
Access Services or the deployment in the Access Network of Sub Loop =
Unbundling backhaul and for no other purpose whatsoever, in particular =
not for:
>=20
> 3.2.1 leased lines for the provision of point to point services =
offered with the intent or effect of providing private circuit type =
services;
>=20
> 3.2.2 direct connection between two Customer Points of Handover or any =
other connection which may be regarded as core network; or
>=20
> 3.2.3 backhaul services, including fixed or mobile and wireless =
backhaul services, with the exception of Sub Loop Unbundling backhaul =
services for fixed traffic (inclusive of Sub Loop Unbundling daisy chain =
aggregation) to the Local Access Node or Customer Point of Handover.
>=20
> as more fully described in the Duct and Pole Sharing Product =
Description,
>=20
> If the Customer uses the Services for any other purposes than for the =
deployment in accordance with clause 3.2 above, this will be a material =
breach of this Agreement under clause 2.3 (a) (ii) and BT may also at =
its sole discretion refuse to accept any Orders for the Service on =
notice to the Customer until the breach has been rectified.
Of course, IANAL so may be getting that completely backwards :)
Edward Dore=20
Freethought Internet=20
On 16 Feb 2013, at 01:10, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of =
layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both shared =
mediums aggregated before the exchange.
>>=20
>=20
> Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be =
allowed to participate in or act as a related party to the L2+ =
providers.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
