nanog mailing list archives
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
From: Art Plato <aplato () coldwater org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:01:50 -0500 (EST)
Although not technically private, this is where we see ourselves getting to if a good competitive environment fosters from the construction of the infrastructure. Again, we can't abandon our citizens to a one provider monopoly, but if a true competitive environment arose we would be quite content to sell last mile at a set price to anyone that wanted to provide services across that last mile and use those funds to maintain and upgrade said infrastructure as required going forward. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> To: "Jason Baugher" <jason () thebaughers com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:49:38 PM Subject: Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher <jason () thebaughers com> wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads, etc... Someone earlier mentioned being able to have millions of fibers coming through a vault, which is true assuming they are just passing through the vault. When you need to break into one of those 864-fiber cables, the room for splice cases suddenly becomes a problem. The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the assumption by most that a government entity would do a good job as a layer-1 or -2 provider and would be more efficient than a private company. Governments, including municipalities, are notorious for corruption, fraud, waste - you name it. Even when government bids out projects to the private sector these problems are seen.
I now this is a popular refrain, but in reality, it's not all that accurate. I have no problem with allowing L1/L2 to be done by private enterprise, so long as said private enterprises are required to abide by the following rules: 1. They are not allowed to sell L3+ services. 2. They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider. 3. They must sell their L1/L2 services to any L3+ service provider on equal terms. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth, (continued)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Leo Bicknell (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth joel jaeggli (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth joel jaeggli (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Art Plato (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jason Baugher (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Eric Brunner-Williams (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth John Levine (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Owen DeLong (Jan 29)
- Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth Jay Ashworth (Jan 30)