Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Ray Soucy <rps () maine edu>]

You're assuming that this would all be free for the ISP, I think.

The ISP would lease the fiber they use AND rack units for equipment
(with use justification to prevent squatting).  If someone wants to
tie up a rack unit for one connection that's their business, but there
would be a financial incentive to be efficient.  Since revenue is
generated for the location; if there is need for expanding capacity
then there would be a business interest in the utility responsible for
maintaining it to accommodate that.

If the power company needs a bigger substation, they don't stop
selling power.  It might take a few months, but the upgrade does
happen ... because there are both business and regulatory reasons to
do so.





On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
> Owen,
>
> This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in
> home runs.  If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports
> of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports
> 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet.  If every ISP has to buy their own
> layer 2 gear that's what happens.  If that gear has to all be hosted in a
> central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and
> cooling.
>
> "Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N
> potential
> subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area
> served
> where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge
> problem."
>
> There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs
> is very low.  If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services
> in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the
> wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands
> of dollars.  The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a
> location that has suitable space, cooling, and power.  Remember that each
> extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation.
>
>
> "OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
> facilities
> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large
> numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver
> what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2
> technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away
> their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?"
>
> No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth.  How
> that happens very few consumers actually care about.  What they do care
> about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond
> money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate
> with us.
>
>
>
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms <khelms () 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
> >
> > It's not, actually.
> >
> > The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss
> > characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N
> > potential
> > subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area
> > served
> > where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a
> > huge
> > problem.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a
> > recipe for
> > exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in
> > earlier
> > comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly
> > as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that
> > to happen.
> >
> > OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
> > facilities
> > back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large
> > numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver
> > what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2
> > technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away
> > their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () herrin us>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () 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 () dirtside com
> > > > > > > > > > bill () 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