Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband

Sat Feb 2 20:10:25 UTC 2013

Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet?  What
GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this
is a good architecture for their PON offering?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

> Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions
> and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I
> might get a job Sometime Soon. :-)  (I'm sure some of you can speculate
> which city it might be, but Please Don't.)
>
> It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of
> which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of
> multi-tenant,
> about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business.
>
> Oh, and a college campus, commuter.
>
> My goal is to fiber the entire city, with a 3-pr tail on each single-family
> residence (or unit of a duplex/triplex), and N*1.5 on multi-tenant business
> buildings, and probably about N*1.1 or so on large multi-unit residences.
> Empty lots, if we have any, will also get a 3-pr tail, in a box.
>
> My plan is for the city to contract out the design and build of the
> physical
> plant, with each individual pair home-run to a Master Distributing Frame in
> a city building.  Since the diameter of the city is so small, this can be
> a single building, and it need not be centrally located -- since we are a
> coastal city, I want it at the other end. :-)
>
>
> I propose to offer to clients, generally ISP, but also property owner/
> renters, L1 connectivity, either between two buildings, or to a properly
> equipped ISP, and also to equip for and offer L2 aggregated connectivity
> to ISPs, where the city, instead of the ISP, will provide the necessary
> CPE termination gear (ONT).  The entire L0 fiber build, and all L2
> aggregation equipment (except potential GPON splitters mentioned next)
> will be the property of the City.
>
> Assuming that the optical math pans out, we will hang GPON splitter frames
> in the MDT, and cross connect subscriber ports to the front of them, and
> the back of them to Provider equipment in an associated colo, in rooms
> or cages; we'll also probably do this for our L2 subscribers, using our
> own GPON splitters.  Those will then be groomed into Ethernet handoffs
> for whatever providers want to take it that way, at a higher MRC.
> Splitters installed for Providers who take L1 handoffs will be their
> property, though installed in our MDF room.
>
> We will do all M-A-C work on the MDF, into which Provider employees will
> generally not be admitted, at least unescorted, on a daily basis, except
> in "emergencies", for which an extra NRC will be levied.
>
> The cost we will charge the Providers, per subscriber, will be a fixed
> MRC, similar to a 'tariffed' rate, which is published, and all Providers
> pay the same rate, which is subject by contract to occasional adjustment
> in either direction, and which is set to recover our costs to provide
> the service, based on take rates and depreciation periods which I have not
> yet determined.  I'm assuming I can get 30 year depreciation out of the
> fiber plant with no problems, probably 40... maybe 50 if it's built to
> high enough standards -- I do not expect passive glass fiber to become
> obsolete in 50 years.
>
> Active equipment, a much shorter period, of course, probably between 4
> and 7 years, depending on how far up the S-curve of terminal equipment
> design it proves that we've already traveled.  At the moment, my
> comparison device is the Calix E7-20, with either 24-port AE or the
> GPON cards; either 836GE interior ONTs, or their equivalent exterior
> ones (since the power module has to be inside anyway, I'm not sure you
> gain that much by putting the ONT outside, but...)
>
>
>
> My motivation for not doing L3 is that it is said to greatly improve the
> chances for competition at the ISP level, a fact not yet in evidence.
>
> My motivation for not doing GPON in the field is that it's thoroughly
> impractical to do that in an environment where an unknown number of
> multiple providers will be competing for the subscribers, and anyway
> it breaks point to point, which the city will need for itself, and which
> I want to offer to residents as well.
>
> My motivation for doing L2 is that it takes a lost of the front-end cost
> burden off of potential smaller 'boutique' ISPs specializing in various
> disciplines (very low cost/lifeline service, very high speed, 'has a big
> local usenet spool', or what have you); such providers will have to pay
> (and recover) a higher per-subscriber MRC, in exchange for not having to
> themselves provision and install GPON splitters and something like a Calix
> E7 -- such hardware will be installed by the City, and cost-shared; if/when
> such a provider gets big enough, they can install their own, and we'll
> cut them over.
>
>
> I propose to take the project to the council for funding and approval
> having in my pocket a letter of intent from a local 2nd tier ISP of
> long standing to become our launch provider, with no incentives over
> the published rates except the guarantee of additional subscribers.
>
>
> My underlying motivation, which is intended to answer any tradeoff queries
> which I haven't explicitly addresses before this point, is to increase
> the City's position as being "full service" (as small as it is, it does
> it's own fire, police, garbage and water already), and improve it's
> chances of selection by people who are deciding where to move.  The City
> already has a relatively good image, within its target market, but as
> time marches ever forwards, the maximum available broadband in its
> footprint will become less and less acceptable, and I expect that there
> are a significant number of people around the country for whom "I can
> get Gigabit in my house? Bidirectional? I'm moving" is a valid viewpoint.
>
> I know already that "what kind of broadband can I get" is a top-5, and
> sometimes top-3 selection issue for people contemplating a move.
>
> Things, therefore, which improve the city's image with potential
> immigrants,
> be they residents or small businesses, are a Good Thing, whether because
> those people actually want or need those services, or whether it's merely
> because they like to bask in the reflected glow there of.
>
> These things will likely reduce the city's vacancy rate, and thus increase
> property tax revenue and hence the city's budget, in addition to slowly
> improving the city's socioeconomic demographics, which will itself likely
> have a salutary effect on the small businesses already here, and in the
> decision processes of people thinking to move one here or start one.
>
>
> That's my thinking so far.  Now comes the hard part: assembling enough
> other budgetary numbers to determine how much it will cost, how much we'll
> have to charge, and whether people will *pay* that much.
>
> I don't have any illusions that the wholesale charges will be a revenue
> stream for the City, and I won't let the council get any such ideas either;
> the benefits to the city (aside from dark fiber to all our own buildings)
> are a bit deeper than that, and will require sufficient time to come to
> fruition.
>
>
> I wrote this as a summary for all the helpful NANOGers who chimed in this
> week, and as a clarification for those who weren't quite sure where *I*
> was trying to go -- all muni builds are sui generis, and this one moreso
> than most.
>
> If any of you see anything we've already said, but I left out, please
> let me know...
>
> And have a Whacky Weekend.  If any of you pass through the west coast
> enroute to ORL, let me know.  :-)
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------