[64838] in North American Network Operators' Group
Rural nework economics [was: Sabotage...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Osmon)
Mon Nov 3 14:19:05 2003
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:28:40 -0700
From: John Osmon <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: John Osmon <josmon@rufus.rigozsaurus.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <000a01c3a20c$83d94f30$0200a8c0@dpeeples21>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:15:11AM -0500, Douglas S. Peeples wrote:
>
> What you describe is a folded ring and is indicative of either a temporary
> solution or bad network design. As a rule, phone companies and capacity
> suppliers build very robust systems.
LATA and ILEC boundaries, along with fiscal measures tend to
conspire against rural areas. The result is bad network design or
a temporary solution that is going to be in place for decades.
By example:
I can't imagine Taos, New Mexico needing more than an OC-48 to
service all of its voice and data needs over the next few years.
The ILEC had a reason (and funding) to build fiber to the
city -- but who will pickup the tab for the redundant build?
The revenue from the services on a single OC-48 won't pay for it...
