Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Sat Mar 24 14:49:48 CDT 2012


>From my own experience in my $DAYJOB, separating capital decisions at the L1
and L2 layers would end up adding cost.  As mentioned elsewhere, GPON and
similar shared medium approaches do not lend themselves well to structural
separation.  The most practical approach is dark fiber runs from the
customer to as few centralized places as possible.  The CLEC would co-locate
their equipment at those centralized places.  The CLEC is then free to use
ActiveE, GPON, whatever-the-next-gen-of-PON.  

Structural separation works best when the cost to build to a customer are
roughly the same. Wherever there's significant disparaties, those will be
exploited and people will overbuild to the highest-margin/lowest cost
customers to avoid the averaged cost of L1 network.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Masataka Ohta
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

<snip>

It doesn't promote local monopoly if you don't allow the L1 company to
provide L2+ services.

If the L1 company is required to be independent of and treat all L2+
services companies equally, then, the ILEC, CLEC, et. all have the same cost
per customer.

Owen







More information about the NANOG mailing list