----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leo Bicknell" <bickn...@ufp.org>
> To put that in patch panel racks, 10,368 households * 6 fibers per > house (3 pair) / 864 per rack = 72 racks of patch panels. Using a > relatively generous for 2-post patch panels 20sq feet per rack it > would be 1,440 sq feet of colo space to house all of the patch > panels to homes. Oh, I hope to ghod we can get higher density that that. > Now, providers coming in would need a similar amount of fiber, so > basically double that amount. There would also need to be some > room for growth. Were I sizing a physical colo for this town I > would build a 5,000 square foot space designed to take ~250 fiber > racks. That would handle today's needs (< 150 racks) and provide > years of growth. 5000ft a fair amount of space. Of course, I could always double the height and put roller ladders in; this is an MDF; the MAC rate should be relatively low. > Note also that the room is 100% patch panels and fiber, no > electronics. Well, your room is. :-) > There would be no need for chillers and generators and similar > equipment. No need for raised floor, or a DC power plant. The sole > difficult part would be fiber patch management, a rather elaborate > overhead tray system would be required. That's another advantage of layer 2: you can use short patches to an intra-rack termination switch, since you can handle all the MAC at VLAN level, with the exception of those clients who actually *want* Layer 1, to whom you can still provide it. > There is almost nothing to bid out here in my model. Today when a > new subdivision is built the builder contracts out all of the work > to the telco/cable-co specifications. That would continue to be > the case with fiber. The muni would contract out running the main > trunk lines to each neighborhood, and the initial building of the > MMR space. Once that is done the ongoing effort is a man or two > that can do patching and testing in the MMR, and occasionally > contracting out repair work when fiber is cut. And again, you're greenfield, and I'm not. :-) > The real win here is that there aren't 2-5 companies digging up streets > and yards. Even if the government is corrupt to the tune of doubling > every cost that's the same in real dollars as two providers building > competitive infrastructure....add in a third and this option is still > cheaper for the end consumer. Yup. > However in my study of government, the more local the less corruption; > on average. Local folks know what's going on in their town, and can > walk over and talk to the mayor. City budgets tend to be balanced as a > matter of law in most places. This would be an entirely local effort. Indeed. Ours is. > Would it be trouble free? No. Would it be better than paying money to > $BigTelcoCableCo who uses their money to argue for higher PUC rates, > probably! And to pay lobbyists to make projects like this *illegal* under state law. No, I am not making that up. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274