Muni Fiber and Politics

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Jul 31 06:15:57 UTC 2014


On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:56:40 AM Leo Bicknell wrote:

> I'm an outlier in my thinking, but I believe the best
> world would be where the muni offered L1 fiber, and
> leased access to it on a non-discrimatory basis.  That
> would necessitate an Active-E solution since L1 would
> not have things like GPON splitters in it, but it
> enables things like buying a dark fiber pair from your
> home to your business, and lighting it with your own
> optics.  That to me is a huge win.
> 
> It also means future upgrades are unencumbered.  Want to
> run 10GE? 100GE?  50x100GE WDM?  Please do.  You leased
> a dark fiber.  If the muni has "gear" (even just
> splitters) in the path they will gatekeeper upgrades.
> 
> It may be a smidge more expensive up front, but in the
> long run I think it will be cheaper, more reliable, and
> most importantly hugely more flexible.

Agree.

The success of this would be determined by how many 
purchases were made against the available fibre pairs in 
Muni's network.

If the number of fibre pairs is less than the demand, then 
the Muni might end either becoming an operator to meet said 
demand or contract experts to operate the network on its 
behalf.

I, too, generally prefer dark fibre options, but I also 
don't mind buying lit capacity if the price is reasonable.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140731/b274e97f/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list