Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:

> Eric Wieling wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other
> > ISPs an ATM PVC into their network.
>
> Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared.
>
> > ATM may not be the best technology to do this,
>
> It is not.

Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback
to using ATM.  There's no particular upside either, but it certainly works
and depending on the gear you're getting your L2TP feed on it may be the
best choice.


> > but the basic concept is not bad.
>
> It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See
> the subject.

Why?

> > What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers,
>
> You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot.
>
> L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best
> (w.r.t. cost, performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas
> L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such
> as ATM or PON, which is locally best for their short term
> revenue, which, in the long run, delays global deployment of
> broadband environment, because of high cost to the customers.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta


-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------