Muni network ownership and the Fourth

Jay Ashworth jra at
Thu Jan 31 02:24:51 UTC 2013

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at>

> 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.

Oh, I hope to ghod we can get higher density that that.

> 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.

5000ft a fair amount of space.  Of course, I could always double the 
height and put roller ladders in; this is an MDF; the MAC rate should
be relatively low.

> Note also that the room is 100% patch panels and fiber, no
> electronics.

Well, your room is.  :-)

> 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.

That's another advantage of layer 2: you can use short patches to an
intra-rack termination switch, since you can handle all the MAC at VLAN
level, with the exception of those clients who actually *want* Layer 1,
to whom you can still provide it.

> 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.

And again, you're greenfield, and I'm not.  :-)

> 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.

Indeed.  Ours is.

> 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!

And to pay lobbyists to make projects like this *illegal* under state

No, I am not making that up.

-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274

More information about the NANOG mailing list