[173751] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Corey Touchet)
Sat Aug 2 22:16:15 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Corey Touchet <corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
CC: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 02:16:07 +0000
In-Reply-To: <04940BA3-3D47-425C-BB88-B304DC991159@ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
But in the cases of small rural communities it=B9s perfectly reasonable to
just setup wifi to cover the town and backhaul a DS3 back to a more
connected location. There=B9s plenty of small wireless companies out there
trying to serve these folks.
On 8/2/14, 3:15 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
>
>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
>> 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=B9s 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=8A
>>>=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/
>
>
>
>
>
