[80803] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: competitive network overbuilds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Thu May 12 11:49:03 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu, David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:46:59 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
David Barak noted:=0D
=0D
>>It should be noted that the same statement applies to=0D
DSL, FTTH, or RFC-1419 service as well: anyone who=0D
wants to CAN do an overbuild, and in fact that would=0D
probably be the best for customers in the long-run.=0D
=0D
A very timely comment, and IMO you are correct. Especially with respect to =
"that=0D
would probably be the best for customers in the long-run." ;)=0D
=0D
But there obviously are limits. I have at times been involved with, and see=
n the=0D
work of others who have attempted to come up with a number that defines jus=
t how=0D
many horizontal service providers - at the various layers of the stack -- w=
ith=0D
glass-wireless at 1, gigabit Ethernet at 2, and Internet at 3 -- a given se=
rvice=0D
territory could support. Analysis must take into account the needs of the=
=0D
citizens being served; the SPs' viability and financial sustainability; and=
the=0D
sheer logistics of the situation, given the limitations of time, space and =
the=0D
need for elegant hand offs to customers through the use of a minimal set of=
=0D
channel interfaces and speeds.=0D
=0D
Given an area where poles and underground conduits are already occupied wit=
h at=0D
least two wireline heavyweights, namely the duopoly players who are happily=
=0D
dancing to the tune of "inter-modal" competition that was given a blessing =
by the=0D
FCC, plus the electric company on the ground, and three-to-four wireless=0D
providers who already are renting space on existing tower structures for Wi=
MAX,=0D
how may more trenches, poles and towers can the support structures and righ=
ts of=0D
way in many populated areas support?=0D
=0D
Consider a simple example, albeit, one that is more easily stated than=0D
accomplished, granted:=0D
=0D
A fiber condominium builder receives permission and a franchise to overbuil=
d=0D
glass onto an entire town's existing copper footprint, resulting in a share=
d=0D
Layer 1 resource that allows upper layer Service Providers to rent fiber fr=
om=0D
them in the forms of feeder, distribution and drop cables right up to each =
end=0D
point.=0D
=0D
Go!=0D
=0D
frank@fttx.org =0D
=0D
---------=0D
=0D
On Wed May 11 17:08 , David Barak sent:=0D
=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>--- "Sam Hayes Merritt, III" sam@themerritts.org>=0D
>wrote:=0D
>=0D
>> You are always free to obtain a franchise and run=0D
>> your own coax. Just =0D
>> because the incumbent cable company does not allow=0D
>> every tom dick and =0D
>> harry ISP to use their copper doesn't mean you can't=0D
>> provide the same =0D
>> service.=0D
>=0D
>It should be noted that the same statement applies to=0D
>DSL, FTTH, or RFC-1419 service as well: anyone who=0D
>wants to CAN do an overbuild, and in fact that would=0D
>probably be the best for customers in the long-run.=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>David Barak=0D
>Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: =0D
>http://www.listentothefranchise.com=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> =0D
>__________________________________ =0D
>Yahoo! Mail Mobile =0D
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. =0D
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail =0D
=0D
=0D
