nanog mailing list archives
Re: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:33:56 -0500 (CDT)
Get backhaul to somewhere useful. Do not buy from the incumbent. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> To: Nanog () nanog org Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:51:38 PM Subject: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit Generic question. Say you have a municipal provider in small town where the municipality won the subsidy over the incumbent to deploy broadband. The easiest is for the town's ISP to buy transit from the incumbent. But incumbent will not be interested in offering competitive pricing. As a sanity check, would a rural ISP come out ahead getting an ethernet link to large city where cheaper transit is available as well as peering to offload a lot of traffic, or would buying transit at higher price locally end up being better ? Is the difference between the two small, or orders of magnitudes cheaper to go one way or the other ? context: in order to provide affordable backhaul to towns, the CRTC *might consider regulation. The Chairman used a key word today "market failure" indicating they are ready to listen to arguments on this.
Current thread:
- Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 12)
- Re: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit Mike Hammett (Apr 13)
- Re: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit Benjamin Hatton (Apr 13)
- Re: Connecting rural providers: ethernet to large city or nearby transit Mike Hammett (Apr 13)