I don't know, I see FCFS as a bad constraint in a lot of situations... Rather just see true separation between conduit and carrier and not have to worry about it.
-Blake On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> > > > > With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of > > > layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both > > > shared mediums aggregated before the exchange. > > > > Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be > > allowed to participate in or act as a related party to the L2+ > > providers. > > Submitted: you're saying, Owen, that L2+ providers should not be able > to own the L1. I agree with that, and the case in point example is here: > > > http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2010/03/15/tech_tt_fiber_fios.cnnmoney/ > > That's orthogonal to the question as we discussed it before, though, > which is what I've adjusted the title to here: I don't see that there > is a bar to competition if a *municipal* L1 provider offers L2 service, > as long as they offer that service to all comers, at the same, published, > cost-recovery rates, including themselves. > > Arguments can be made about "whose tickets take priority" and such, but > those seem easy to hand: FCFS. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 > 1274 > >