Can the L1 provider offer L2 services?

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 03:19:58 UTC 2013


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 <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

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