[173748] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Sat Aug 2 17:15:47 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxox7F0FC3t+bAHUz=t3WxMyZj4=4jquU2bqR1p9Z=VvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 16:15:28 -0500
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_7C5AECD1-186A-4932-8311-ED14ADBB9DFC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
There are plenty of cities with zero ISP's interested in serving them =
today, I can't argue
that point. However I believe the single largest reason why that is =
true is that the ISP
today has to bear the capital cost of building out the physical plant to =
serve the customers.
15-20 year ROI's don't work for small businesses or wall street.
But if those cities were to build a municipal fiber network like we've =
described, and pay
for it with 15-20 year municipal bonds the ISP's wouldn't have to bear =
those costs. They
could come in drop one box in a central location and start offering =
service.
Which is why I said, if municipalities did this, I am very skeptical =
there would be more than
a handful without a L3 operator. You can imagine a city of 50 people in =
North Dakota
or the Northern Territories might have this issue because the long haul =
cost to reach the
town is so high, but it's going to be a rare case. I firmly believe the =
municipal fiber networks
presence would bring L3 operators to 90-95% of cities.
On Aug 2, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Such a case is unlikely.=20
>=20
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above =
helps.
>> That=92s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 =
services
>> 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=85
>>=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
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--Apple-Mail=_7C5AECD1-186A-4932-8311-ED14ADBB9DFC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Edt9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_7C5AECD1-186A-4932-8311-ED14ADBB9DFC--
