[173377] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 22 17:20:23 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxjQUKZq3ypJau=0JA0T1YVc4TfJ2d3CrdU-3+uuhDmHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:06:16 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:55 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the =
fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON =
or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a =
shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every =
ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear =
has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need =
much more power, space, and cooling.
>=20
> "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per =
N potential
> subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per =
area served
> where Y =3D Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that =
as a huge
> problem."
>=20
> There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number =
of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to =
offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of =
an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in =
the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, =
as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and =
power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and =
heat dissipation.
Areas that will attract a high number of ISPs will have sufficient =
subscriber density to justify larger-capacity shelves for each of them. =
Places where ISPs will buy smaller capacity shelves are places that will =
have a low number of ISPs.
>=20
>=20
> "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 =
facilities
> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to =
large
> numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to =
deliver
> what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2
> technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take =
away
> their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?"
>=20
> No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. =
How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do =
care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in =
bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to =
collocate with us.
No, what consumers want is cheap reliable bandwidth that doesn't become =
slow and antiquated in a few years.
Frankly, I don't care whether it's a municipality or an NGO or a private =
enterprise. What I want is a law that says "If you operate L1, you can't =
play at L2+. If you operate L1, then you must offer the same product =
offerings to all L2+ providers on the same terms at the same price.". If =
you've got that, then someone will find a way for everyone who wants to =
compete for L2+ services in a given area to get or create an L1 =
capability that they can share.
Doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard to justify building a colo =
and SWC together in most cases. $300,000 sounds pretty cheap, actually.
Owen
