nanog mailing list archives

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?


From: Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:54:06 -0500

Art,

In that case its even harder.  Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying.  Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato <aplato () coldwater org> wrote:
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild.
Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also
the local electric utility.

________________________________
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms () zcorum com>
To: "Art Plato" <aplato () coldwater org>
Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d () alter3d ca>, nanog () nanog org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its
non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator
concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups
don't consider it important/viable.

Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though
not impossible, because of how provisioning works.   Making it work in many
of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single
NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato <aplato () coldwater org> wrote:

That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with
the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive
market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old
monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of
our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our
citizens.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d () alter3d ca>
To: nanog () nanog org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your
yard?

There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services.
Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance
& legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer
of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to
everyone else.  If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2
services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but
it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept
from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is
available.

- Pete


On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing
services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with
Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative.
When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear
that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town
this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service
that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't
play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No
information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all
that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My
director believes that we would better serve our community by being the
layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in
principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities
providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted
us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum
price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to
provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our
constituents would lose. IMHO.

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us>
To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM
Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your
yard?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca>
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
offering. Wholesale only.

Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
service providers to provide retail services over the last mile
network.
As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at
layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue
for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the
taxpayers.


It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there
is
a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in
fact
be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
subscribers?  Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of
my municipality?
Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is
returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in
the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering
customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be
had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.

Regards,
Bill Herrin









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




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


Current thread: