nick hatch wrote:
I get that too, but I strongly disagree with the strategy. In this part of the world (Whatcom/Skagit county, Washington state), dark fiber is cheap and readily available for about the cost of a T1 in many locations. (If buildout is required, it's often subsidized into the MRC.)
Unfortunately where I'm at in the Midwest there is no dark fiber to be had. None of the large local LECs are willing to even carry a wavelength for a customer. There simply isn't anyone in the areas that I'm located to in offering wavelengths or dark fiber as a product to force the other players to compete. Now in KC, Denver, Lincoln or OKC it's different story. There are enough people willing to do it there that the other LECs have all fallen into step and also offer the service. Many are the very same LECs that refuse to do so here.
My network at $dayjob is hardly big enough to be considered enterprise (our fanciest piece of kit is a 3560), yet for branch locations we still have the need to use unsupported 70km and single-strand optics.
I'd love to have the potential to lease dark fiber like that. It would make my life much easier.
Surely the world has other communities like this, with cheap plentiful fiber? $4k for a ZX transceiver with the right logo on it is laughable.
It depends on the market but it's not available everywhere. Forbes rated a city 15m away from our HQ (and one of the towns we CLECed) in the top 10 of IT meccas in the US and yet it's still not possible there. Go figure. The state independent telcos are working together to build a state fiber network to provide low-cost transport across the state, like what they did in Indiana and Texas. It's a few years out though.
Justin _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
