Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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