[173780] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Aug 5 11:05:53 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKJkDEuzbjqemnKXnybygeyPL=yig8UMs9eMtXNRS_yH4FNYbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:00:10 -0700
To: "mcfbbqroast ." <bbqroast@gmail.com>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:34 PM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it =
properly
> and effectively.
>=20
> I'm a fan of either:
>=20
> Dark fibre to every house.
>=20
> Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
The problem with soft handover is that the monopoly provider is in a =
place to stifle innovation and creativity by creating a limitation on =
what kinds of handoffs/protocols/etc. can be supported.
> All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
>=20
> Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISPs (reduced =
labour to
> connect user, reduced maintenance) and dark fibre for others (reduced
> costs, increased control).
I don=92t mind an optional soft handover, but dark fiber MUST be a =
required service.
Owen
> On 5 Aug 2014 14:11, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen@imacandi.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging =
L1
>> facilities
>>> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to =
large
>>> numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to =
deliver
>>> what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer =
L2
>>> technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and =
take
>> away
>>> their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?
>>>=20
>>> In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber =
cables
>> running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some =
EU
>> regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created =
a
>> project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in =
some
>> tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach =
every
>> street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to =
point B
>> (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the
>> customer).
>>>=20
>>> To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it =
at
>> whatever speeds they like between two points.
>>>=20
>>> The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on =
the
>> prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this =
is kept
>> under control by regulation.
>>=20
>> As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is =
available
>> on equal footing to all comers, that=92s about as good as it will get =
whether
>> run by private enterprise or by the city itself.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>=20
