Muni Fiber and Politics

Tue Jul 22 21:10:02 UTC 2014

I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US.  I agree
with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there
yet.

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber
> from
> a serving "wire center" each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever
> on their own.
>
> That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs
> on the other
> side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be
> an
> "ANYTHING" service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can
> imagine)
> install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in
> the colo
> and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that
> applies to
> all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space.
>
> So I think we are completely on the same page now.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having
> > switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some
> > instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use
> > their own equipment.
> >
> > The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service.  If you
> > have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a
> > service?  More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or
> > gets neglected who is responsible for it?  I don't think the
> > municipality or public utility is a good fit.
> >
> > Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with.
> >
> > BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm
> > talking about active FTTH.  PON is basically throwing money away if
> > you look at the long term picture.
> >
> > Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the
> > right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't
> > think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the
> > interest of an ISP.  What you're asking for is basically to have a
> > "competitive" environment where everyone delivers the same service.
> > If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no
> > change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> >> One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is
> that its
> >> extremely inefficient in terms of the gear.  Now, this is in large part
> a
> >> function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales
> went in
> >> this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to
> >> purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the
> total
> >> number of line cards would otherwise dictate.  There are certainly many
> >> other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but
> >> I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the
> cleanest
> >> situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2
> with
> >> the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology
> >> used.
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Helms
> >> Vice President of Technology
> >> ZCorum
> >> (678) 507-5000
> >> --------------------------------
> >> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> >> --------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy <rps at maine.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate.
> >>>
> >>> FTTH is a big investment.  Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not
> >>> attractive for a commercial ISP to do.  A business will want to
> >>> realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will
> >>> need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve
> >>> that.  None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so
> >>> we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow
> >>> service.
> >>>
> >>> Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
> >>> state or regional level).  It should have an open access policy at
> >>> published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
> >>> fiber (conflict of interest).  This covers the fiber box in the house
> >>> to the communications hut to patch in equipment.
> >>>
> >>> Think of it like the power company and the separation between
> >>> generation and transmission.
> >>>
> >>> That's Step #1.
> >>>
> >>> Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber.
> >>>
> >>> Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed.
> >>>
> >>> Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment
> >>> needed for an ISP to service a community is.  Hopefully, enough people
> >>> jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't,
> >>> you need to get creative.
> >>>
> >>> The important thing is that the fiber stays open.  I'm not a fan of
> >>> having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work.
> >>> I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust
> >>> it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the
> >>> fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources.  I certainly don't trust
> >>> the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service.
> >>>
> >>> This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO.  Municipal FTTH
> >>> is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3.
> >>>
> >>> That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant
> >>> won't be enough.  In these situations, the municipality can do things
> >>> like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an
> >>> ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains
> >>> subscribers.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as
> >>> long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want.
> >>> The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that
> >>> can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but
> >>> most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to
> >>> find the staff to run its own ISP, either.
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues
> >>> and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a
> >>> government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market.
> >>>
> >>> Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and
> >>> equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling
> >>> etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford
> >>> to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in
> >>> installing a switch or two to deliver service?  If you're a smaller
> >>> ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone
> >>> companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective:
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they
> >>>> laid
> >>>> fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for
> free?
> >>>> Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free?
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think the LECs would come unglued?
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes
> to
> >>>>> mind).  The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city
> >>>>> funded,
> >>>>> or donated.  The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been
> >>>>> public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling
> >>>>> expanded service.  I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell
> >>>>> service
> >>>>> beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've
> >>>>> generally
> >>>>> seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue
> >>>>> to pay
> >>>>> of the financing.  Lower cost than commercial services because
> >>>>> municipal
> >>>>> bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a
> cost-recovery
> >>>>> basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Miles Fidelman
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aaron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet
> >>>>>> access
> >>>>>> to it's residents?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
> >>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>> or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity "free with every layer 1
> >>>>>>> connection"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Matthew Kaufman
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (Sent from my iPhone)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always
> on
> >>>>>>>> and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other
> >>>>>>>> utility?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Blake
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
> >>>>>>>>>> municipalities
> >>>>>>>>>> to own fiber networks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jay,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception.
> There
> >>>>>>>>> are many things government does better than any private
> >>>>>>>>> organization
> >>>>>>>>> is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at
> >>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>> exorbitant price.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall;
> once
> >>>>>>>>> built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
> >>>>>>>>> residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or
> >>>>>>>>> via
> >>>>>>>>> taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
> >>>>>>>>> access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar
> happen
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Bill Herrin
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com
> bill at herrin.us
> >>>>>>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/
> >
> >>>>>>>>> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ================================================================
> >>>> Aaron Wendel
> >>>> Chief Technical Officer
> >>>> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> >>>> (816)550-9030
> >>>> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> >>>> ================================================================
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ray Patrick Soucy
> >>> Network Engineer
> >>> University of Maine System
> >>>
> >>> T: 207-561-3526
> >>> F: 207-561-3531
> >>>
> >>> MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
> >>> www.maineren.net
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ray Patrick Soucy
> > Network Engineer
> > University of Maine System
> >
> > T: 207-561-3526
> > F: 207-561-3531
> >
> > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
> > www.maineren.net
>
>