RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Eric Wieling <EWieling () nyigc com>]

The ILECs basically got large portions of the 1996 telecom reform rules gutted via lawsuits.  DSL unbundling was part 
of this.   See http://quello.msu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-05-02.pdf   The ILECs already need a DSLAM in each CO 
and already use ATM PVCs to provide L2 connectivity from the DSLAM to their IP network, I don't think it is that much 
more expensive to allow other ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.     ATM may not be the best technology to do this, 
but the basic concept is not bad.  Ethernet VLANs would be another option, as would Frame Relay, as would simply DAXing 
multiple 64k channels from the customer endpoint to the ISP if you want more L1 style connectivity.    

What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers, I don't care what the local loop is.   It could be fiber, twisted 
pair, coax, or even licensed wireless and hand it off to me over a nice fat fiber link with a PVC or VLAN or whatever 
to the customer endpoint.   What I don't want is to have to install equipment at each and every CO I want to provide 
service out of.  This would be astoundingly expensive for us.

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:42 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Eric Wieling wrote:

> In the past the ISP simply needed a nice big ATM pipe to the
> ILEC for DSL service.   The ILEC provided a PVC from the
> customer endpoint to the ISP.  As understand it this is no longer the 
> case, but only because of non-technical issues.

The non-technical issue is *COST*!!!!!

No one considered to use so expensive ATM as L2 for DSL unbundling, at least in Japan, which made DSL in Japan quite 
inexpensive.

> We currently use XO, Covad, etc to connect to the customer We get a 
> fiber connection to them and the provide use L2 connectivity to the 
> custom endpoint using an Ethernet VLAN,
> Frame Relay PVC, etc complete with QoS.   I assume XO,
> etc use UNE access to the local loop.   There is no reason
> a Muni can't do something similar.

Muni can. However, there is no reason Muni can't offer L1 unbundling.

                                                Masataka Ohta