Muni network ownership and the Fourth
jra at baylink.com
Thu Jan 31 02:24:51 UTC 2013
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org>
> 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
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,
And to pay lobbyists to make projects like this *illegal* under state
No, I am not making that up.
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
More information about the NANOG