[173741] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 2 13:33:21 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRyxxGM0SeuVKz5eZD4jvqvK+-zV1ndiHwfZYevJXVrjvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 10:24:40 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Such a case is unlikely.=20
On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.=
>> That=A1=AFs bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 servic=
es
>> could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber
>> GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON
>> serving a VoIP box may=A1=A6
>=20
> Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a=
viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
>=20
