Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jay Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Tue Feb 12 04:33:03 UTC 2013


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>

> On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> 
> > Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
> > copper services brought into the home.

> Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
> penetration.

What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.

If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
ISP field tech will have to work it.

*This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
is scared of.

No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the 
drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

> I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
> extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
> shouldn't do this.

Hopefully that explains my concern.

> As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
> L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
> L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
> economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
> only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
> per media type (rarely even more than 1).

I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.

> However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
> leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
> possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
> ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
> reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
> a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
> 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.

Sure.  

> I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
> that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
> any additional technologies anywhere.

Yup; I've been saying that right along.  That's why I'd prefer to do the
install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.

Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.

That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
through on order.

> If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
> that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
> avoid any blurring of the lines.

I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that 
opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to 
offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
service would.

Had I misunderstood you?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at 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




More information about the NANOG mailing list