You're assuming that this would all be free for the ISP, I think. The ISP would lease the fiber they use AND rack units for equipment (with use justification to prevent squatting). If someone wants to tie up a rack unit for one connection that's their business, but there would be a financial incentive to be efficient. Since revenue is generated for the location; if there is need for expanding capacity then there would be a business interest in the utility responsible for maintaining it to accommodate that.
If the power company needs a bigger substation, they don't stop selling power. It might take a few months, but the upgrade does happen ... because there are both business and regulatory reasons to do so. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in > home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports > of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports > 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own > layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a > central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and > cooling. > > "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N > potential > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area > served > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge > problem." > > There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs > is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services > in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the > wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands > of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a > location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each > extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. > > > "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?" > > No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How > that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care > about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond > money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate > with us. > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: >> >> > One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that >> > its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large >> > part >> >> It's not, actually. >> >> The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss >> characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. >> >> > a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales >> > went >> > in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have >> > to >> > purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the >> > total >> > number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many >> >> Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N >> potential >> subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area >> served >> where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a >> huge >> problem. >> >> > other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but >> > I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the >> > cleanest >> > situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 >> > with >> > the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology >> > used. >> >> The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a >> recipe for >> exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in >> earlier >> comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly >> as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that >> to happen. >> >> 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? >> >> Owen >> >> > >> > >> > Scott Helms >> > Vice President of Technology >> > ZCorum >> > (678) 507-5000 >> > -------------------------------- >> > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms >> > -------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <r...@maine.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. >> >> >> >> FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not >> >> attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to >> >> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will >> >> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve >> >> that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so >> >> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow >> >> service. >> >> >> >> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a >> >> state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at >> >> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the >> >> fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house >> >> to the communications hut to patch in equipment. >> >> >> >> Think of it like the power company and the separation between >> >> generation and transmission. >> >> >> >> That's Step #1. >> >> >> >> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. >> >> >> >> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. >> >> >> >> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment >> >> needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people >> >> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, >> >> you need to get creative. >> >> >> >> The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of >> >> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. >> >> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust >> >> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the >> >> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust >> >> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. >> >> >> >> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH >> >> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. >> >> >> >> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant >> >> won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things >> >> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an >> >> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains >> >> subscribers. >> >> >> >> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as >> >> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. >> >> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that >> >> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but >> >> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to >> >> find the staff to run its own ISP, either. >> >> >> >> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues >> >> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a >> >> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. >> >> >> >> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and >> >> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling >> >> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford >> >> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in >> >> installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller >> >> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone >> >> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aa...@wholesaleinternet.net> >> >> wrote: >> >>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: >> >>> >> >>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they >> >> laid >> >>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for >> >>> free? >> >>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? >> >>> >> >>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued? >> >>> >> >>> Aaron >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually >> >>>> in >> >>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes >> >>>> to >> >>>> mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city >> >> funded, >> >>>> or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been >> >>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles >> >>>> and >> >>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling >> >>>> expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell >> >>>> service >> >>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. >> >>>> >> >>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've >> >> generally >> >>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue >> >> to pay >> >>>> of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because >> >>>> municipal >> >>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a >> >>>> cost-recovery >> >>>> basis. >> >>>> >> >>>> Miles Fidelman >> >>>> >> >>>> Aaron wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet >> >> access >> >>>>> to it's residents? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in >> >> free >> >>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1 >> >>>>>> connection" >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Matthew Kaufman >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <iki...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always >> >>>>>>> on >> >>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other >> >>>>>>> utility? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Blake >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for >> >>>>>>>>> municipalities >> >>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Jay, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. >> >>>>>>>> There >> >>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private >> >>>>>>>> organization >> >>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at >> >>>>>>>> an >> >>>>>>>> exorbitant price. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; >> >>>>>>>> once >> >>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so >> >>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or >> >>>>>>>> via >> >>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network >> >>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar >> >>>>>>>> happen >> >> in >> >>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were >> >>>>>>>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint >> >>>>>>>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable >> >> and >> >>>>>>>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on >> >>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure >> >>>>>>>> side. >> >>>>>>>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight >> >>>>>>>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>>>> Bill Herrin >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com >> >>>>>>>> b...@herrin.us >> >>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> >>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> ================================================================ >> >>> Aaron Wendel >> >>> Chief Technical Officer >> >>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) >> >>> (816)550-9030 >> >>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com >> >>> ================================================================ >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ray Patrick Soucy >> >> Network Engineer >> >> University of Maine System >> >> >> >> T: 207-561-3526 >> >> F: 207-561-3531 >> >> >> >> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network >> >> www.maineren.net >> >> >> > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net