Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk <frnkblk () iname com> wrote:
> >
> > > Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
> > > copper services brought into the home.
>
> > Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
> > penetration.
>
> What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.

Why? Why can't it be drop cable, or, require the technician to place
the patch cord in appropriate innerduct to protect it?

> If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
> that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
> ISP field tech will have to work it.

I disagree. It could be either a connectorized drop cable or a patch cord.
If it's a patch cord, you could require appropriate innerduct from the
external jackbox to the interior termination point.

> *This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
> is scared of.

So you're afraid of installers handling fiber patch cords, or, you're 
afraid of the patch cords not holding up after installed, or what?

> No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the 
> drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

Given that set of requirements, I would opt for the interior jack box.

The muni should not be providing ONTs as part of it's L1 service and
their L1 service should be the same product for everyone, whether it's
Muni L2, Muni L3+L2, or any other service provider or set of providers
doing the L2, L3, etc.

There should be no active components in the muni L1 product.

> > I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
> > extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
> > shouldn't do this.
>
> Hopefully that explains my concern.

I think I understand your concern. I'm not sure I agree with it.

> > As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
> > L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
> > L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
> > economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
> > only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
> > per media type (rarely even more than 1).
>
> I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.
>
> But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.

You should absolutely expect L1 providers.

The L2 and/or L3 services should be operated strictly as the back-up provider
of last resort and/or to keep the other providers honest.

> > However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
> > leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
> > possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
> > ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
> > reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
> > a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
> > 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.
>
> Sure.  

In case I wasn't clear... Everything beyond the jack box counts as IW (IF?)
from my perspective.

> > I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
> > that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
> > any additional technologies anywhere.
>
> Yup; I've been saying that right along.  That's why I'd prefer to do the
> install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.

Sure, I can understand that. The problem is when you get into the business
of doing interior terminations on customer premises that aren't actually ordering
service at this time, you open yourself up to a host of installation difficulties and
increased costs.

That's why I think the better solution is an exterior patch box with a requirement
that all patches into the box be brought out inside innerduct.

> Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.
>
> That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
> through on order.

How do you propose to do your validation tests against fiber coiled in
a box?

> > If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
> > that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
> > avoid any blurring of the lines.
>
> I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that 
> opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to 
> offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
> service would.

I'm not sure whether offering L2 would cause competitive pressure the way
L3 would, but, I do think that there is a lot of benefit and I'm becoming more
convinced by some of the other arguments that clean layer separation at
L1 is well worth while.

> Had I misunderstood you?

My opinion is evolving with the discussion. I was wishy washy about L2 before.
I'm becoming more convinced that even if you offer it, it should have clean
separation.

In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate
SFP.

Owen