[173747] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Sat Aug 2 15:04:14 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <8C91DE6E-B56D-47E1-B826-10B2D024D87F@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 15:04:05 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There
are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm.
On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Such a case is unlikely.
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps=
.
>> That=E2=80=99s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 se=
rvices
>> 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=E2=80=A6
>>
>
> Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for
> a viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
>
>
