Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Wed Apr 13 11:33:56 UTC 2016


Get backhaul to somewhere useful. Do not buy from the incumbent. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca> 
To: Nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:51:38 PM 
Subject: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit 


Generic question. 

Say you have a municipal provider in small town where the municipality 
won the subsidy over the incumbent to deploy broadband. 

The easiest is for the town's ISP to buy transit from the incumbent. But 
incumbent will not be interested in offering competitive pricing. 

As a sanity check, would a rural ISP come out ahead getting an ethernet 
link to large city where cheaper transit is available as well as peering 
to offload a lot of traffic, 

or would buying transit at higher price locally end up being better ? 

Is the difference between the two small, or orders of magnitudes cheaper 
to go one way or the other ? 



context: in order to provide affordable backhaul to towns, the CRTC 
*might consider regulation. The Chairman used a key word today "market 
failure" indicating they are ready to listen to arguments on this. 





More information about the NANOG mailing list