[173743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 2 13:40:36 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1QSNF_j0a9_ASKqdUZxGA2hdvbhmLXzsgpyFGWur_=gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 10:26:09 -0700
To: "joly@punkcast.com" <joly@punkcast.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don't pretend to be the original person with this idea. But I would very m=
uch like to see it implemented.=20
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:24, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> MHO, 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
>=20
>=20
> A few years back Fred Goldstein proposed defining a Layer 1 infrastructure=
provider as a "LoopCo", where the local loop is passively provided to servi=
ce providers to light it as they see fit. He even wrote draft legislation,=
where the incumbent LEC is divided into a "Facilities Entity" and a "Servic=
es Entity":
>=20
> http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm
>=20
> That proposal generally requires something like a CLEC to light the wire l=
ocally, and makes CLECs viable again. =20
>=20
> He has also proposed requiring ILECs (and cablecos) to provide low-layer (=
layer 2, mostly) common carriage on an open basis; as filed in the current N=
N docket:
>=20
> http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm
>=20
>=20
> j
>=20
> --=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
