Rural nework economics [was: Sabotage...]

John Brown (CV) jmbrown at
Tue Nov 4 02:53:00 UTC 2003

OC-48 doesn't have to do with the redundant build.

physical fiber path does.

thus, who will pay for the redundant fiber build.

maybe that should come from the $700 Million the ILEC promised 
the state in new investment money, in exchange for relaxed

rural or not,  capitalism will hinder redundancy unless
the shareholders or the insurance companies say otherwise.

heck right in ABQ, NM you can kill several LD providers
with just 2 fiber cuts.  Take them off net for ABQ.

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:28:40PM -0700, John Osmon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:15:11AM -0500, Douglas S. Peeples wrote:
> > 
> > What you describe is a folded ring and is indicative of either a temporary
> > solution or bad network design. As a rule, phone companies and capacity
> > suppliers build very robust systems.  
> LATA and ILEC boundaries, along with fiscal measures tend to
> conspire against rural areas.  The result is bad network design or 
> a temporary solution that is going to be in place for decades.
> By example:
> I can't imagine Taos, New Mexico needing more than an OC-48 to
> service all of its voice and data needs over the next few years.
> The ILEC had a reason (and funding) to build fiber to the
> city -- but who will pickup the tab for the redundant build?
> The revenue from the services on a single OC-48 won't pay for it...

More information about the NANOG mailing list