Muni Fiber and Politics

Andrew Gallo akg1330 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 20:35:02 UTC 2014


On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> The only exception I see to this would be if localities were 
>> constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint 
>> communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and 
>> non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the 
>> services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. 
>> Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight 
>> despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
>
> While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I 
> would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be 
> exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode 
> fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, 
> preferrably tens of thousands.
>
> It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and 
> in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different 
> technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can 
> provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run 
> hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. 
> Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable 
> in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation.
>
Agree 100%.  Layer-1 infrastructure is a high-cost, long term investment 
with little 'value-add'  You don't see too many companies clamoring to 
put in new water or sewer pipes.  Treat fiber the same way.

The money is in content, which is why we're seeing ISP and media 
consolidation.


More information about the NANOG mailing list