On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> > I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from >> > providing those services. > That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical > home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with > Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers. >
The L0 (ROW, poles & conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka "City" is also a consumer of "City 2 City" service above L2, and is also a consumer of "City 2 Subscriber" services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude "City" as a provider. Eric
