Muni network ownership and the Fourth

Jason Baugher jason at
Wed Jan 30 17:33:38 UTC 2013

Ah, I said nothing about involving $BigTelcoCableCo. There are smaller
companies that will do these projects, as long as they make business sense.
Muni's can do things to make it more attractive, such as not charging for
right-of-way, property tax incentives, etc... There's nothing wrong with
the concept of a single entity building out the infrastructure for others
to lease on a wholesale basis, I just don't think that entity should be a

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at> wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:33:35AM -0600, Jason
> Baugher wrote:
> > There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
> > into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space
> the
> > termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads,
> etc...
> > Someone earlier mentioned being able to have millions of fibers coming
> > through a vault, which is true assuming they are just passing through the
> > vault. When you need to break into one of those 864-fiber cables, the
> room
> > for splice cases suddenly becomes a problem.
> Corning makes a pre-terminated breakout bay for the 864 cable
> nicknamed the "mamu".  It is in essence a 7' rack, which is about
> 90% SC patch panels and 10% splice trays.  The cable comes in and
> is fusion spliced to tails already pre-terminated in the rack.  I
> don't know if they now have an LC option, which should be more
> dense.  They are perhaps 1' deep as well, being just patch panels
> in a 2-post rack, so they take up much less space than a cabinet.
> To run some rough numbers, I live in a town with a population of
> 44,000 people, grouped into 10,368 "households".  It is the size
> that if the MMR were pretty much perfectly centered 10km optics
> should reach all corners of the town, but were it not centered more
> than one MMR would be needed.
> To put that in patch panel racks, 10,368 households * 6 fibers per
> house (3 pair) / 864 per rack = 72 racks of patch panels.  Using a
> relatively generous for 2-post patch panels 20sq feet per rack it
> would be 1,440 sq feet of colo space to house all of the patch
> panels to homes.
> Now, providers coming in would need a similar amount of fiber, so
> basically double that amount.  There would also need to be some
> room for growth.  Were I sizing a physical colo for this town I
> would build a 5,000 square foot space designed to take ~250 fiber
> racks.  That would handle today's needs (< 150 racks) and provide
> years of growth.
> Note also that the room is 100% patch panels and fiber, no electronics.
> There would be no need for chillers and generators and similar
> equipment.  No need for raised floor, or a DC power plant.  The sole
> difficult part would be fiber patch management, a rather elaborate
> overhead tray system would be required.
> > The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
> > assumption by most that a government entity would do a good job as a
> > layer-1 or -2 provider and would be more efficient than a private
> company.
> > Governments, including municipalities, are notorious for corruption,
> fraud,
> > waste - you name it. Even when government bids out projects to the
> private
> > sector these problems are seen.
> There is almost nothing to bid out here in my model.  Today when a
> new subdivision is built the builder contracts out all of the work
> to the telco/cable-co specifications.   That would continue to be
> the case with fiber.  The muni would contract out running the main
> trunk lines to each neighborhood, and the initial building of the
> MMR space.  Once that is done the ongoing effort is a man or two
> that can do patching and testing in the MMR, and occasionally
> contracting out repair work when fiber is cut.
> The real win here is that there aren't 2-5 companies digging up streets
> and yards.  Even if the government is corrupt to the tune of doubling
> every cost that's the same in real dollars as two providers building
> competitive infrastructure....add in a third and this option is still
> cheaper for the end consumer.
> However in my study of government, the more local the less corruption;
> on average.  Local folks know what's going on in their town, and can
> walk over and talk to the mayor.  City budgets tend to be balanced as a
> matter of law in most places.  This would be an entirely local effort.
> Would it be trouble free?  No.  Would it be better than paying money to
> $BigTelcoCableCo who uses their money to argue for higher PUC rates,
> probably!
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at

More information about the NANOG mailing list