Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this is a good architecture for their PON offering?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions > and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I > might get a job Sometime Soon. :-) (I'm sure some of you can speculate > which city it might be, but Please Don't.) > > It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority of > which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of > multi-tenant, > about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail multi-unit business. > > Oh, and a college campus, commuter. > > My goal is to fiber the entire city, with a 3-pr tail on each single-family > residence (or unit of a duplex/triplex), and N*1.5 on multi-tenant business > buildings, and probably about N*1.1 or so on large multi-unit residences. > Empty lots, if we have any, will also get a 3-pr tail, in a box. > > My plan is for the city to contract out the design and build of the > physical > plant, with each individual pair home-run to a Master Distributing Frame in > a city building. Since the diameter of the city is so small, this can be > a single building, and it need not be centrally located -- since we are a > coastal city, I want it at the other end. :-) > > > I propose to offer to clients, generally ISP, but also property owner/ > renters, L1 connectivity, either between two buildings, or to a properly > equipped ISP, and also to equip for and offer L2 aggregated connectivity > to ISPs, where the city, instead of the ISP, will provide the necessary > CPE termination gear (ONT). The entire L0 fiber build, and all L2 > aggregation equipment (except potential GPON splitters mentioned next) > will be the property of the City. > > Assuming that the optical math pans out, we will hang GPON splitter frames > in the MDT, and cross connect subscriber ports to the front of them, and > the back of them to Provider equipment in an associated colo, in rooms > or cages; we'll also probably do this for our L2 subscribers, using our > own GPON splitters. Those will then be groomed into Ethernet handoffs > for whatever providers want to take it that way, at a higher MRC. > Splitters installed for Providers who take L1 handoffs will be their > property, though installed in our MDF room. > > We will do all M-A-C work on the MDF, into which Provider employees will > generally not be admitted, at least unescorted, on a daily basis, except > in "emergencies", for which an extra NRC will be levied. > > The cost we will charge the Providers, per subscriber, will be a fixed > MRC, similar to a 'tariffed' rate, which is published, and all Providers > pay the same rate, which is subject by contract to occasional adjustment > in either direction, and which is set to recover our costs to provide > the service, based on take rates and depreciation periods which I have not > yet determined. I'm assuming I can get 30 year depreciation out of the > fiber plant with no problems, probably 40... maybe 50 if it's built to > high enough standards -- I do not expect passive glass fiber to become > obsolete in 50 years. > > Active equipment, a much shorter period, of course, probably between 4 > and 7 years, depending on how far up the S-curve of terminal equipment > design it proves that we've already traveled. At the moment, my > comparison device is the Calix E7-20, with either 24-port AE or the > GPON cards; either 836GE interior ONTs, or their equivalent exterior > ones (since the power module has to be inside anyway, I'm not sure you > gain that much by putting the ONT outside, but...) > > > > My motivation for not doing L3 is that it is said to greatly improve the > chances for competition at the ISP level, a fact not yet in evidence. > > My motivation for not doing GPON in the field is that it's thoroughly > impractical to do that in an environment where an unknown number of > multiple providers will be competing for the subscribers, and anyway > it breaks point to point, which the city will need for itself, and which > I want to offer to residents as well. > > My motivation for doing L2 is that it takes a lost of the front-end cost > burden off of potential smaller 'boutique' ISPs specializing in various > disciplines (very low cost/lifeline service, very high speed, 'has a big > local usenet spool', or what have you); such providers will have to pay > (and recover) a higher per-subscriber MRC, in exchange for not having to > themselves provision and install GPON splitters and something like a Calix > E7 -- such hardware will be installed by the City, and cost-shared; if/when > such a provider gets big enough, they can install their own, and we'll > cut them over. > > > I propose to take the project to the council for funding and approval > having in my pocket a letter of intent from a local 2nd tier ISP of > long standing to become our launch provider, with no incentives over > the published rates except the guarantee of additional subscribers. > > > My underlying motivation, which is intended to answer any tradeoff queries > which I haven't explicitly addresses before this point, is to increase > the City's position as being "full service" (as small as it is, it does > it's own fire, police, garbage and water already), and improve it's > chances of selection by people who are deciding where to move. The City > already has a relatively good image, within its target market, but as > time marches ever forwards, the maximum available broadband in its > footprint will become less and less acceptable, and I expect that there > are a significant number of people around the country for whom "I can > get Gigabit in my house? Bidirectional? I'm moving" is a valid viewpoint. > > I know already that "what kind of broadband can I get" is a top-5, and > sometimes top-3 selection issue for people contemplating a move. > > Things, therefore, which improve the city's image with potential > immigrants, > be they residents or small businesses, are a Good Thing, whether because > those people actually want or need those services, or whether it's merely > because they like to bask in the reflected glow there of. > > These things will likely reduce the city's vacancy rate, and thus increase > property tax revenue and hence the city's budget, in addition to slowly > improving the city's socioeconomic demographics, which will itself likely > have a salutary effect on the small businesses already here, and in the > decision processes of people thinking to move one here or start one. > > > That's my thinking so far. Now comes the hard part: assembling enough > other budgetary numbers to determine how much it will cost, how much we'll > have to charge, and whether people will *pay* that much. > > I don't have any illusions that the wholesale charges will be a revenue > stream for the City, and I won't let the council get any such ideas either; > the benefits to the city (aside from dark fiber to all our own buildings) > are a bit deeper than that, and will require sufficient time to come to > fruition. > > > I wrote this as a summary for all the helpful NANOGers who chimed in this > week, and as a clarification for those who weren't quite sure where *I* > was trying to go -- all muni builds are sui generis, and this one moreso > than most. > > If any of you see anything we've already said, but I left out, please > let me know... > > And have a Whacky Weekend. If any of you pass through the west coast > enroute to ORL, let me know. :-) > > 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 > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------