Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
sgorman1 at gmu.edu
sgorman1 at gmu.edu
Tue Aug 9 18:58:25 UTC 2005
The latest is in the warehouse this september. Thanks for the interest.
best,
sean
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Crooks <sam.a.crooks at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 10:06 am
Subject: RE: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
> When is that book of yours coming out?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of
> sgorman1 at gmu.edu
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:34 PM
> To: Gordon Cook
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
>
>
>
> The unfortunate part of all this is there is a demand for diversity,
> especially from the financial and government sectors. One of the big
> problems is that clients seldom know which providers or
> combinaiton of
> providers give them the most diversity. There are some intersting
> ways to
> claculate the optimal set of providers by price and diversity, but
> gettingthe data is quite difficult. Sometime large clients like
> the US government
> can leverage providers into divulging routing and right of ways,
> but is
> definately the exception. Even from our rough analyses there are
> severalareas of heavily shared colocation. Sounds like the
> problem is getting
> worse and not better.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gordon Cook <cook at cookreport.com>
> Date: Monday, August 8, 2005 4:17 pm
> Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
>
> >
> > So although we have the technology to build networks controlled
> at
> >
> > the edge and networks that are less subject to failure,
> > the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist
> > that
> > we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies.
> > Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities
> of
> >
> > economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the
> > switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of
>
> > failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco
> > router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever
>
> > failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber.
> > Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad.
> >
> > How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at
> > infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted.
> >
> > How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to
> understand
> >
> > they better build their own infrastructure.
> > because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the
> > equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good
> > execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your
> > shareholder...never mind the public at large?
> >
> >
> >
> > =============================================================
> > The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing,
> NJ
> > 08618 USA
> > 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook at cookreport.com
> > Subscription
> > info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report:
> Where
> > is
> > New Wealth
> > Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml
> > =============================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been
> especially> > interesting for me, with my focus being on the
> future
> > implications of
> > > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that
> > > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI
> > will be
> > > to drastically reduce the number of options that network
> > planners in
> > > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for
> > > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro
> transport> > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations
> are completed.
> > >
> > > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of
> > > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in
>
> > > order to
> > > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to
> > kick in.
> > > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that
>
> > > business
> > > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to
> > mention> service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to
> a
> > fare-thee-
> > > well,
> > > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have
> are, How
> > > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and,
> What
> > will> become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to
> > either> business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered
> > due to
> > > concentration of powers?
> > >
> > > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point
> where
> > their> services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a
> number
> > of
> > > places, it
> > > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from
> > > disparate providers who are using different rights of way.
> This is
> > > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.'
> > However,> the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or
> > even copper) loop
> > > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding
> piggy-
> > back> atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering.
> > >
> > > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by
> > Verizon,> SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are
> > still possible.
> > >
> > > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the
> > number of
> > > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once
> > > integration is completed users will find themselves riding
> over
> > > systems
> > > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common
> > set
> > > of NMS
> > > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher
> > > levels in the stack.
> > >
> > > frank at coluccio.net
> > > ------
> > >
> > >
> > >> Eight or nine people I had
> > >> talked to thought they had geographically distinct
> > >> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable
> > >> when the second cut took it down hard.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy
> > > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into
> > > their contracts?
> > >
> > > Or was this type of service "good enough"?
> > >
> > > --Michael Dillon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list