[173720] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Aug 1 11:34:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D001083E.11518%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:30:08 -0700
To: Corey Touchet <corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
As I said, for an example of just how well such an environment works, =
one need look no further than what happened when MCI attempted to use =
Pacific Bell/SBC/AT&T unbundled copper pairs to provide local telephone =
service.
In reality, this turns out to be horrible for the customer, unpleasant =
at best for the competitive service provider, and one of the few areas =
where I=92ve ever seen a traditional telco be truly innovative. Pacific =
Bell/SBC/AT&T found the most innovative ways to stall/finger-point/avoid =
responsibility that I have ever seen. Watching the tap-dance they did in =
front of the PUC at subsequent hearings where nobody seemed to have the =
sbupoena=92d data among the 20+ witnesses that they presented was quite =
amusing to me. The ALJ was not so amused, but the fine imposed was =
barely a slap on the wrist and easily less than the revenue impact to =
the competitive access providers.
Believe me when I say that such a law is almost entirely unenforceable =
and not really worth the paper it is written on if the layer 1 provider =
is truly motivated to stifle competition which is dependent on their =
unbundled elements.
Canada is struggling with some similar pains under their competitive =
access cable markets.
Owen
On Aug 1, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Corey Touchet =
<corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> wrote:
> Not really, the law can say must provide standards compliant access =
for
> interconnections with a agreed upon base set of features it must =
support.
> Any provider that wants something extra can negotiate the reasonable =
costs
> of implementation.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 8/1/14, 8:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> This would be my humble suggestion:
>>>>=20
>>>> - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
>>>> default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
>>>> terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS.
>>=20
>> The problem with this is it allows the lines provider to dictate
>> the technology to be used by all higher-layer service providers.
>>=20
>> IMHO, this is undesirable, because it blocks innovation and
>> service differentiation on this basis.
>>=20
>> Ideally, the lines provider is simply a lines provider and provides
>> a number of dark fiber pairs between the serving wire center (what
>> you called a CO) and each premise served by the SWC.
>>=20
>> Termination at the customer end should be a box in which a customer
>> terminal can be installed and the fibers should all be terminated on
>> some standard form of patch panel (ST or LC probably preferred,
>> but others may be acceptable).
>>=20
>> It would then be up to the service provider(s) to provide the =
terminals
>> and decide between customer self-install and truck-rolls for service
>> turn-up.
>>=20
>>>> - lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed
>>>> service to soft hand over to ISPs (think 96 Gbps lines
>>>> to 2 10gbps ports). Perhaps upgrading so such a ratio
>>>> never becomes congested could be a requirement?
>>=20
>> Putting the lines provider into this part of the equation preserves
>> many of the problems with the existing model.
>>=20
>>>> - lines provider also rents individual lines to ISPs
>>>> which they can use directly. Rent should be lower than
>>>> soft handover.
>>=20
>> Now you=B9ve got competition operating at a disadvantage to the
>> incumbent lines provider, preserving this aspect of the problems
>> with the current system. IMHO, this should be the only service
>> the lines provider is allowed to sell. In that way, the lines =
provider
>> is not in competition with its wholesale customers.
>>=20
>> If you want examples of how well the model you propose tends to
>> work, look no further than the incredible problematic nature of MCI=B9s=
>> attempt to offer local phone service over Pacific Bell/SBC/AT&T
>> circuits.
>>=20
>>>> This way ISPs can easily offer services. POTS over VoIP
>>>> can be setup on installation of the terminal (so
>>>> handover to the ISP is seamless). Finally business and
>>>> residential services can also be provided over the fibre
>>>> directly (this will be attractive to ISPs with many
>>>> ports, to reduce costs, and premium/business ISPs to add
>>>> control).
>>=20
>> This is also true of dark fiber pairs, with the added advantage
>> that the service providers can differentiate themselves on
>> chosen technology, can offer innovative services and can
>> leverage existing infrastructure to deploy newer technologies as
>> they develop.
>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> - ideally the lines provider would aid in providing cheap
>>>> backhaul from the co (while still allowing 3rd party
>>>> users to bring fibre in).
>>=20
>> I don=B9t think this is so ideal. Again, it creates an opportunity =
for
>> the lines provider to leverage their infrastructure in a way that it
>> can become a barrier to competition. This is, IMHO, the opposite
>> of good.
>>=20
>>> Wholesale mode. Doable.
>>>=20
>>> Works best if the lines provider is not a service provider;
>>> or regulation in your market ensures a service provider who
>>> is also a lines provider is mandated to unbundle at
>>> reasonable cost.
>>=20
>> Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost, often
>> other games are played (trouble ticket for service billed by
>> lines provider resolved in a day, trouble ticket for service on
>> unbundled element resolved in 14 days, etc.).
>>=20
>> IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
>> prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be
>> prohibited from playing at the higher layers.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
