RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Eric Wieling <EWieling () nyigc com>]

Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs 
IP network?

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

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.

> but the basic concept is not bad.

It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject.

> 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