[173742] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 2 13:37:02 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2E2F1D9-1386-4688-8325-189C0699BD93@ufp.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 10:24:02 -0700
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Municipalities can be different. It=A1=AFs possible to write into law tha=
t
> they can offer L1 and L2 services, but never anything higher. There=A1=AF=
s
> also a built in disincentive to risk tax dollars more speculative, but
> possibly more profitable ventures.
Sure, a muni could offer that and be likely OK. As long as L1 services were k=
ept a hard requirement.=20
> So while I agree with Owen that a dark fiber model is preferred, and
> should be offered, I don=A1=AFt have a problem with a municipal network al=
so
> offering Layer 2. In fact, I see some potential wins, imagine a network
> where you could chose to buy dark fiber access, or a channel on a GPON
> system? If the customer wants GE/10GE, you get dark fiber, and if they
> want 50Mbps, you get a GPON channel for less (yes, that=A1=AFs an assumpti=
on)
> cost.
If the L1 provider has to have dark fiber to every prem, the cost model of P=
ON is strictly within the SWC and not the outside plant. As such, those savi=
ngs could be done by the competing access providers without requiring differ=
entiation by the L1 provider.
> I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from=20
> home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M
> VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics.
This would be served out if multiple SWCs anyway, so there would be some pro=
vider able to offer that most likely. =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 service=
s
> 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
The problem I've seen with this is that the savings achieved by PON primaril=
y come from aggregating fiber pairs at the edge. In order to have competitio=
n enabled L1, the fiber must go from prem all the way to SWC.=20
So while I can't see a problem with allowing an L1 provider to also offer L2=
, usually when that happens, they don't offer L1.=20
If both are offered, the majority of the L2 benefits disappear.=20
Owen
