----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Helms" <khe...@zcorum.com>
> Owen > I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions > for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective > method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires > compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is cheap > enough in brand new builds) to simply home run every home and maintain > that. That's my fundamental design assumption, and you're the first person to throw a flag on it. I'm hearing $700 per passing and $600 per sub; those seem sustainable numbers for a 30 year service life amortization. I'm not yet 100% clear if that's layer 1 only or layer 2 agg as well. [ And note that for me, it's practical; most everyone else is merely along for the ride. ] > ISPs that would want to use the shared network in general (>95% > in my experience) don't want to maintain the access gear and since there > is no clear way to delineate responsibilities when there is an issue its > hard. You're talking about what I'm calling L2 clients. If layer 2 falls over it's my fault, and believe me, I'll know about it. > The long and short of it is lots of people have tried to L1 sharing > and its > not economical and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere changes that. You just changed gears again, no? I'm not trying to share L1 *drops*. I'm trying to make it possible to share *the entire L1 deployment between providers*, a drop at a time. > The thing you have to remember is that muni networks have to be cost > effective > and that's not just the capital costs. The operational cost in the long > term is much greater than the cost of initial gear and fiber install. Depends on what you're trying to do. But yes, I do know the difference between CAPEX and OPEX. 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