On Thursday, August 14, 2014 05:24:56 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Given the context of the conversation, I was hoping it
> was clear I meant a *wet* port, not just a jack on a
> card...
Indeed.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Tinka"
> On Monday, August 04, 2014 04:38:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > So that implies he really did mean 44x GigE to end-prem,
> > from 4 $5500 10G ports -- or, $500/home in MRC *cost* to
> > the provider.
> >
> > I'm confused.
>
> With an edge router
On Monday, August 04, 2014 04:38:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So that implies he really did mean 44x GigE to end-prem,
> from 4 $5500 10G ports -- or, $500/home in MRC *cost* to
> the provider.
>
> I'm confused.
With an edge router chassis filled with 10Gbps ports for
various things, they quickl
On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Is there any way we could stop this discussion until we can get some
> participants who have experience doing things like emergency post-ice-storm
> overhead circuit restoration to show up and explain exactly why charging a
> small one-time
On 8/6/2014 9:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
So is what I am proposing. In fact, I'm pretty sure my proposal is cheaper,
especially in the long run.
So build one already!
Matthew Kaufman
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 10:23:55AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
> By drawing an (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) boundary between L1/L2 and
> L3-L7,
> I think a situation can be created where there is maximum flexibility on both
> sides of that boundary, and the least chance of "stupidity" from
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:56, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber through
>> >> pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up
>> >> other peopl
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:13 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and
> wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the
> original works project built, then it wanes until the project is in
> major disrepair, then it waxes again l
On 2014-08-02 15:15, Leo Bicknell wrote:
But if those cities were to build a municipal fiber network like we've
described, and pay
for it with 15-20 year municipal bonds the ISP's wouldn't have to bear those
costs. They
could come in drop one box in a central location and start offering servic
Matthew Kaufman writes:
> In the meantime, I'd like to see the city where an ISP can buy as many
> of the microducts as they want. I'd like to buy them all,
> please... though I have no intention of running anything though them,
> as I'm an investor in the local cable TV company.
The fire ants
Is there any way we could stop this discussion until we can get some
participants who have experience doing things like emergency
post-ice-storm overhead circuit restoration to show up and explain
exactly why charging a small one-time fee for a fiber from A to Z is
probably not a sustainable mo
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> > All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
>
> Nonononono, bad plan. I want a fiber from my home to my storefront on
> main street, but I'm a consumer not a retailer so I can't buy just
> one? Or hey, so sorry but the cable MuniFiber ran
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:26 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Hi Eugeniu,
>
> The word you're searching for is "microduct."
>
That's it, I wasn't sure about it.
> I'm a big fan of Microduct. There's even some wicked cool equipment
> which will force the core out of in-place coax plant, converting
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> So how is blowing microfibre in some tubes more expensive? You pay a one
> off installation fee and then a small monthly rate for the circuit (payable
> yearly).
>
> The really nice and geeky part is that you can actually choose how your
>
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:34 AM, mcfbbqroast . wrote:
> I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
> and effectively.
>
> I'm a fan of either:
>
> Dark fibre to every house.
>
> Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
>
> All ran by an entity forbidden
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >>
> >> This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber
> through
> >> pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up
> >> other people's glass are... unclear? :-)
> >
> > Not really, if one compan
>>
>> This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber through
>> pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up
>> other people's glass are... unclear? :-)
>
> Not really, if one company starts making mistakes, the other will also
> mistake their cabl
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Eugeniu Patrascu"
>
> > In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables
> > running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU
> > regulations that communi
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:34 PM, mcfbbqroast . wrote:
> I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
> and effectively.
>
> I'm a fan of either:
>
> Dark fibre to every house.
>
> Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
The problem with soft handover
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
and effectively.
I'm a fan of either:
Dark fibre to every house.
Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISP
On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> 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)
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
>>> horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
>>> service you can come up with today does.
>> Well, not in the foreseeable futur
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:27 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>>>
>>> Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
>>> line.
>>>
>>> Rather d
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> I can think of issues that arise when the municipality provides layer
> 2 services.
>
> 1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and
> wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the
> original works p
- Original Message -
> From: "Eugeniu Patrascu"
> In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables
> running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU
> regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a
> project whereby
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> 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
Owen DeLong wrote:
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have bee
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>>
>> Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
>> line.
>>
>> Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus
>> pr
> Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
> horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
> service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have been made about co
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
>> prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be
>> prohibited from playing at the higher layers.
>
> Owen ha
- Original Message -
> > On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>
> >> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
> >> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
> >> on that, that the MRC cost
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 05:11:09AM
+0200 Quoting Mark Tinka (mark.ti...@seacom.mu):
> On Sunday, August 03, 2014 01:31:17 AM Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> > Oh, yes, there is. Multicast? IPv6? Both CAN be done, but
> > probably won't.
>
On Sunday, August 03, 2014 01:31:17 AM Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Oh, yes, there is. Multicast? IPv6? Both CAN be done, but
> probably won't.
I'm talking about the opportunities large bandwidth
presents, non-technical issues aside.
Certainly, IPv6 and Multicast have a place on a 1Gbps link
into the
But in the cases of small rural communities it¹s perfectly reasonable to
just setup wifi to cover the town and backhaul a DS3 back to a more
connected location. There¹s plenty of small wireless companies out there
trying to serve these folks.
On 8/2/14, 3:15 PM, "Leo Bicknell" wrote:
>
>Ther
Is it, or is it the norm because it is the result of a lack of facilities in
those locations?
Show me even one area where there is a rich fiber infrastructure available on
an equal footing to multiple competitors to provide L3 services and there are
no L3 providers offering service to those res
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 07:40:50AM
+0200 Quoting Mark Tinka (mark.ti...@seacom.mu):
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> > It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
>
> If the provider is able t
There are plenty of cities with zero ISP's interested in serving them today, I
can't argue
that point. However I believe the single largest reason why that is true is
that the ISP
today has to bear the capital cost of building out the physical plant to serve
the customers.
15-20 year ROI's don
Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There
are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm.
On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Such a case is unlikely.
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I can never see
Thanks , makes sense. I was looking on peeringdb.com for some locations
nearby but they're all 20+ miles . However, there is a Telx a block
from my house that I walk past everyday. Maybe a I can string along a
10G connection to my basement office :)
On 8/2/2014 9:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I thought JRA was asking about the upstream cost.
Owen
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
>> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
>> on that,
I don't pretend to be the original person with this idea. But I would very much
like to see it implemented.
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:24, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> MHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
>> prefer to
> Municipalities can be different. It’s possible to write into law that
> they can offer L1 and L2 services, but never anything higher. There’s
> also a built in disincentive to risk tax dollars more speculative, but
> possibly more profitable ventures.
Sure, a muni could offer that and be li
Such a case is unlikely.
On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>> That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services
>> could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark
That's why I want legislation requiring the operator to be one or the other and
not both.
Most L1 gets built with tax dollars or subsidies anyway.
Owen
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:34, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Even when mandated to
On Aug 2, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Vlade Ristevski wrote:
> I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet access
> to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a network for a
> small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps Internet is about
> $5,500
I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet
access to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a
network for a small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps
Internet is about $5,500 a month with the fiber loop included which
itself costs $2000
On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
> on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month for a
> gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was
> consumer prici
On Friday, August 01, 2014 06:34:00 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on
> provider, location, etc.
>
> That’s with IP transit included.
With IP Transit included, perhaps. But 10Gbps ports are not
expensive these days.
Depends on whether you selling 10Gbp
On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost,
> often other games are played (trouble ticket for service
> billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble
> ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14
> days, etc.).
On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a
> viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
I have a very hard time believing that if a city (no matter what size) had a
FTTH deployment, sold on a non-discriminatory basis
>
>
>
> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
> That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services
> could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber
> GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> MHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
> prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be
> prohibited from playing at the higher layers
>
A few years back Fred Goldstein proposed defining a Layer 1 i
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If you want examples of how well the model you propose tends to
> work, look no further than the incredible problematic nature of MCI’s
> attempt to offer local phone service over Pacific Bell/SBC/AT&T
> circuits.
[snip]
> IMHO, experience has t
So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the arithmetic easy, and that
means if we can put 44 people on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month
for a gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was consumer pricing the
assertion?
On August 1, 2014 12:34:00 PM EDT, Owen DeLong w
Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on provider, location, etc.
That’s with IP transit included.
Owen
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> What is the MRC of a 10GE port?
>
> On August 1, 2014 1:40:50 AM EDT, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28
What is the MRC of a 10GE port?
On August 1, 2014 1:40:50 AM EDT, Mark Tinka wrote:
>On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
>> It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
>
>If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home
>(either on copper or fibre) with l
As I said, for an example of just how well such an environment works, one need
look no further than what happened when MCI attempted to use Pacific
Bell/SBC/AT&T unbundled copper pairs to provide local telephone service.
In reality, this turns out to be horrible for the customer, unpleasant at b
Not really, the law can say must provide standards compliant access for
interconnections with a agreed upon base set of features it must support.
Any provider that wants something extra can negotiate the reasonable costs
of implementation.
On 8/1/14, 8:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>On Aug 1
On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
>
>> This would be my humble suggestion:
>>
>> - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
>> default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
>> terminal, with gigab
Anyone know how to summarize this end game well enough for state/federal
legislators?
Or raise enough money and direction to provide sufficient
"lobbying?"
Wasn't KC asking for a dept of the Internet at the NANOG 20 in DC?
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:44:28AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday,
On Friday, August 01, 2014 09:30:57 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
> I think this is a sector the
> government would do well in. Unlike being an actual ISP
> there's no ambiguity (oversubscription, customer
> service, etc). Just provide a gigabit line with no
> congestion and solid uptime, or a fibre pai
Govt controlled, please.
We have tried both in NZ.
Before telecom provided internet and ran lines. They were equally shit at
both and apparently there were many issues for other ISPs using the lines.
Now Chorus owns the and they insist that $40+/mo for wholesale DSL is fair.
I think this is a se
On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
> This would be my humble suggestion:
>
> - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
> default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
> terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS.
>
> - lines provider provide
This would be my humble suggestion:
- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines
provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs
and POTS.
- lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand
over to ISPs (think 96 G
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
> It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home
(either on copper or fibre) with little to no uplink
oversubscription (think 44x customer-facing Gig-E ports + 4x
10Gbps upl
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 06:56:40PM
-0500 Quoting Leo Bicknell (bickn...@ufp.org):
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > Symmetrical would be tough to do unless you're doing Active-
> > E.
>
> I&#x
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:56:40 AM Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best
> world would be where the muni offered L1 fiber, and
> leased access to it on a non-discrimatory basis. That
> would necessitate an Active-E solution since L1 would
> not have thing
On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Symmetrical would be tough to do unless you're doing Active-
> E.
I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best world would be
where the muni offered L1 fiber, and leased access to it on a
non-discrimatory basis. That would necessitate
On Monday, July 21, 2014 07:28:22 PM Scott Helms wrote:
> I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If
> they didn't re-engineer their splits (or plan for
> symmetrical from the beginning) they could run into some
> problems because the total speed on a GPON port is
> asymmetrical, abo
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, William Allen Simpson
wrote:
> On 7/21/14 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
>>
>> Mine isn
On 7/21/14 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've
suffered 3 sanitary s
On 07/23/2014 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>> The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
>> in most scenarios.
>
> No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the
> same way that we do. :)
+1
I wou
On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
in most scenarios.
No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the
same way that we do. :)
Doug
The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
in most scenarios.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Rich Kula
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Steven Saner wrote:
[...]
> Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take
> on the project.
I've seen that exact scenario happen in rural New Mexico. The Co-op
members wanted dial-up access, and couldn't get it. They asked the
On 7/23/2014 10:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Funny story. There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa. The
reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of barbed
wired strands into party lines. Things developed from there.
In California in the 1960s Pacific had tar
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
> I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that...
I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and
personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress,
lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue pre
On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:33 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris wrote:
>> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?
>
> Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
> theoretically in a position to have their app generate e
William Herrin wrote the following on 7/23/2014 3:33 PM:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris wrote:
What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?
Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris wrote:
> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?
Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty
back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peerin
What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio? Are they
being faithful to the agreement when they make no effort to compete in
the wholesale market? What content players buy transit from Verizon to
reach networks other than Verizon's?
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:25:49PM -0600,
On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon
rights-of-way lease
Steven Saner wrote:
In the US, in midwest rural areas at least, you see do quite a few
cooperatives in the realm of things like power distribution. It isn't
quite the same as neighbors getting together to build a network, but it
has some of the same elements. I live outside of the city and I am a
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to
>> 6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to
>> think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta.
25% of a lot of money is a lot more money.
On 07/23/2014 07:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements
>> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more
>> reliable
>> path to getting repaid than an open system.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Barton"
I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit
building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or
so.
Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the s
- Original Message -
> From: "Doug Barton"
> > I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit
> > building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or
> > so.
>
> Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that
> Keenan raised
Mikael,
Fiber length is least representative measure of work as it relates to
putting fiber in the ground. Now, its impressive that they did anything
but if a professional crew took more than a couple of months to do this
they'd be out of a job. I
'd be much more impressed by a lower distance c
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while
getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years
is not impressive at all.
I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do.
--
Mikael Abrahamssone
Mikael,
Its an interesting idea and I'd like to see some communities try it here.
Having said that, I anticipate that B4RN style networks will run into some
substantial maintenance and reliability issues over time. I love the quote
in the economist from the farmer's wife who learned (assuming au
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
for a more open approach. The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
Another model is the one described for instance in
https://ww
That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US.
There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where
its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in
coverage. In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some
exceptions, there
On 07/22/2014 06:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Keenan Tims"
If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps
a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a
resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services
- Original Message -
> From: "Keenan Tims"
> If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps
> a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a
> resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider
> A and Internet services f
To take this in a slightly different direction, as long as we're looking
for pies in the sky, has anyone considered the "bundling" problem?
If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps
a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a
resource allocat
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you
> can be pretty sure that the pair is clean end-to-end.
You'd be surprised. I recently dealt with a gentleman who built his
campus fiber plant expecting to configure end-to-end fib
True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you can be pretty
sure that
the pair is clean end-to-end.
Owen
On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:07 , Scott Helms wrote:
> My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because
> of the specific projects and cities I've worke
Sometimes the beauty of having government involved in infrastructure
is that you don't need to justify a 3 year ROI.
Creation of the Transcontinental Railroad
Rural Electrification
Building of the Interstate Highway System
Wall ST may have everyone focused on short term gains, but when it
comes t
I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree
with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there
yet.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts.
Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and
regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida P
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
