Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

William Herrin bill at
Fri Mar 23 12:12:08 CDT 2012

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> It is already a monopoly. Most places are served by one of
>>> the utilities: power, telephony or cable. He that controls
>>> the outside plant controls your fate.
>> The difference is in how the services can be unbundled.
>> Power is additive (if in phase) that network topology is
>> irrelevant.
>> For telephony, unbundling for DSL at L1 is just fine.
>> So is optical fiber if single star topology is used.
>> WDM PON can still be unbundled at L1.
>> However, with time slotted PON, unbundling must be
>> at L2, which is as expensive as L3, which means
>> there effectively is no unbundling.
>> Or, CLEC may rent a raw fiber at L1 and operate its
>> own PON. However, as CLEC has less customer density
>> to share the fiber than ILEC, CLEC's fiber cost per
>> customer is higher than that of ILEC, which is why
>> PON promotes local monopoly.
> It doesn't promote local monopoly if you don't allow the L1 company to provide L2+ services.
> If the L1 company is required to be independent of and treat
> all L2+ services companies equally, then, the ILEC, CLEC,
> et. all have the same cost per customer.

Hi Owen,

Just for grins, I wonder: what is the minimal set of _structural_
requirements that could end the kind of abuses we see from the ILECs
without relying on good behavior? The problem with regulatory
compulsion is that it restrains the march of technological progress
too. Minimum is good.

Here's what I'm thinking:

1. Any company which provides more than "5%" of the OSI Layer 1
services in a given locality is prohibited from providing any Layer 7
services except those strictly incidental to the operation of the L1
service (e.g. billing or customer service web sites, internal
corporate network).

2. Such a communications infrastructure company may vend L1-L6
services only in units suitable for connecting single customers. For
example, they're not allowed to lease "a multi-customer coaxial cable
in the King street neighborhood." The service unit is "a dedicated
coaxial cable from 44 King street to the head end" or "A dedicated
cable channel from 44 King Street to the head end" or "25mbps/25mbps
from 44 King strreet to the head end" or "25 mbps / 25 mbps from 44
King Street to 888 King Street".

3. Such a communications infrastructure company is compelled to
provide reasonable and non-discriminatory access too all who would
interconnect. Charge whatever you want but no quantity or special
discounts and if you bill any service provider at the head end of the
connection then you bill them all the same. No settlement free peering
for this guy while that guy pays.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at  bill at
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the NANOG mailing list