[173374] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 22 17:11:14 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnNcwRe+SXc0a_ZJpvdjLUnR+vONLzN09V5siOzPpO15Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:00:43 -0700
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology =
fiber from
a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever
on their own.
That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with =
SWCs on the other
side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to =
be an
"ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can =
imagine)
install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in =
the colo
and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that =
applies to
all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space.
So I think we are completely on the same page now.
Owen
On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
> I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having
> switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some
> instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use
> their own equipment.
>=20
> The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you
> have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a
> service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or
> gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the
> municipality or public utility is a good fit.
>=20
> Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with.
>=20
> BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm
> talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if
> you look at the long term picture.
>=20
> Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the
> right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't
> think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the
> interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a
> "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service.
> If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no
> change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> =
wrote:
>> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is =
that its
>> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large =
part a
>> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales =
went in
>> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have =
to
>> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the =
total
>> number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly =
many
>> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, =
but
>> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the =
cleanest
>> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and =
2 with
>> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access =
technology
>> used.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000
>> --------------------------------
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> --------------------------------
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant =
separate.
>>>=20
>>> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but =
not
>>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to
>>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and =
will
>>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve
>>> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so
>>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow
>>> service.
>>>=20
>>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
>>> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
>>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
>>> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the =
house
>>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment.
>>>=20
>>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between
>>> generation and transmission.
>>>=20
>>> That's Step #1.
>>>=20
>>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber.
>>>=20
>>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed.
>>>=20
>>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment
>>> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough =
people
>>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they =
don't,
>>> you need to get creative.
>>>=20
>>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of
>>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work.
>>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust
>>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light =
the
>>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust
>>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service.
>>>=20
>>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH
>>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3.
>>>=20
>>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant
>>> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do =
things
>>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for =
an
>>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains
>>> subscribers.
>>>=20
>>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as
>>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want.
>>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that
>>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but
>>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to
>>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either.
>>>=20
>>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure =
issues
>>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a
>>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market.
>>>=20
>>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and
>>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling
>>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could =
afford
>>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest =
in
>>> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller
>>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone
>>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you).
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron =
<aaron@wholesaleinternet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the =
collective:
>>>>=20
>>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if =
they
>>>> laid
>>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for =
free?
>>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for =
free?
>>>>=20
>>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued?
>>>>=20
>>>> Aaron
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - =
usually
>>>>> in
>>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA =
comes to
>>>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been =
city
>>>>> funded,
>>>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been
>>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light =
poles
>>>>> and
>>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of =
selling
>>>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell
>>>>> service
>>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've
>>>>> generally
>>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for =
revenue
>>>>> to pay
>>>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because
>>>>> municipal
>>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a =
cost-recovery
>>>>> basis.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Aaron wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet
>>>>>> access
>>>>>> to it's residents?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing =
in
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer =
1
>>>>>>> connection"
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone)
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much =
always on
>>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other
>>>>>>>> utility?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> -Blake
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin =
<bill@herrin.us>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth =
<jra@baylink.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
>>>>>>>>>> municipalities
>>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jay,
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. =
There
>>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private
>>>>>>>>> organization
>>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and =
at
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> exorbitant price.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; =
once
>>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, =
so
>>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly =
or
>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all =
network
>>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar =
happen
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
>>>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to =
multipoint
>>>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a =
reasonable
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on =
the
>>>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure =
side.
>>>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and =
freight
>>>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect =
simile.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com =
bill@herrin.us
>>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: =
<http://www.dirtside.com/>
>>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> Aaron Wendel
>>>> Chief Technical Officer
>>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
>>>> (816)550-9030
>>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Ray Patrick Soucy
>>> Network Engineer
>>> University of Maine System
>>>=20
>>> T: 207-561-3526
>>> F: 207-561-3531
>>>=20
>>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
>>> www.maineren.net
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Ray Patrick Soucy
> Network Engineer
> University of Maine System
>=20
> T: 207-561-3526
> F: 207-561-3531
>=20
> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
> www.maineren.net
