Muni Fiber and Politics

mcfbbqroast . bbqroast at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 06:54:07 UTC 2014


This would be my humble suggestion:

- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines
provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs
and POTS.

- lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand
over to ISPs (think 96 Gbps lines to 2 10gbps ports). Perhaps upgrading so
such a ratio never becomes congested could be a requirement?

-  lines provider also rents individual lines to ISPs which they can use
directly. Rent should be lower than soft handover.

This way ISPs can easily offer services. POTS over VoIP can be setup on
installation of the terminal (so handover to the ISP is seamless). Finally
business and residential services can also be provided over the fibre
directly (this will be attractive to ISPs with many ports, to reduce costs,
and premium/business ISPs to add control).

- ideally the lines provider would aid in providing cheap backhaul from the
co (while still allowing 3rd party users to bring fibre in).

Sorry for the engrish, I'm on a mobile device :(.
On 1 Aug 2014 17:43, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> > It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
>
> If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home
> (either on copper or fibre) with little to no uplink
> oversubscription (think 44x customer-facing Gig-E ports + 4x
> 10Gbps uplink ports), essentially, there is no limit to what
> services a provider and its partners can offer to its
> customers.
>
> Mark.
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list