[173750] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 2 19:35:26 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxox7F0FC3t+bAHUz=t3WxMyZj4=4jquU2bqR1p9Z=VvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 16:30:11 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Is it, or is it the norm because it is the result of a lack of facilities in=
those locations?
Show me even one area where there is a rich fiber infrastructure available o=
n an equal footing to multiple competitors to provide L3 services and there a=
re no L3 providers offering service to those residential customers.
I bet I can get a provider going there pretty quick.
Owen
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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 help=
s.
>>>> That=E2=80=99s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 s=
ervices
>>>> 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
>>>=20
>>> Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance fo=
r a viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
