Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

> I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
> which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
> all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
> provider, simply would not apply.

Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the costs.  IMO if you can't pay
for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
long term success are very low.  L1, at scale, sharing is simply
impractical for all of its philosophical benefits for more municipal
network operators.  That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but I can
point to lots of successful muni operators who are the layer 3 provider.  I
can point to several that offer open access at layer 2 successfully but I
don't know of any doing L1 sharing that would call it a success.  Do you
know of some that do?


> We have a philosophical disagreement here.  I fully support public
> ownership of public ownership of "natural" monopolies, and the fiber
> plant itself (L1) certainly qualifies.
>
> However, running L2 (or L3) over that fiber is _not_ a natural monopoly,
> so I do _not_ support public ownership.  At most, I could stomach a
> "provider of last resort" to guarantee resident access to useful
> services, in the IMHO unlikely event that only one (or zero) private
> players showed up, or a compelling need to provide some residents (eg.
> the elderly or indigent, schools, other public agencies, etc.) with
> below-cost services.

Too many places have either no or very poor services being provided from
the market for me to take this stance.  I have observed that muni networks
are more likely to fail than investor or privately owned operators but I
don't know what causes that.  I suspect that some is because in many cases
the city doesn't manage it effectively but in other cases the major factor
may be that the area is simply hard to run a broadband business in and even
break even, which may be why no normal operator set up shop there.

I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
> outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
> to.  If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
> be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
> up service.
What ILEC is offering L1 fiber access at all?



> S
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


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