On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Wieling <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul > their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network? > In the independent space this has been Ethernet for a very long time. In the RBOC space its taken longer, but my understanding is that they have also switched most of their connections. The only exceptions to this I am aware of are those AT&T and Verizon territories that are still limited to g.lite (1.5 mbps) ADSL. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2? > > Eric Wieling wrote: > > > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other ISPs an > > ATM PVC into their network. > > Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared. > > > ATM may not be the best technology to do this, > > It is not. > > > but the basic concept is not bad. > > It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See the subject. > > > What *I* want as an ISP is to connect to customers, > > You may. However, the customers care cost for you to do so, a lot. > > L1 unbundling allows the customers to choose an ISP with best (w.r.t. > cost, performance, etc.) L2 and L3 technology, whereas > L2 unbundling allows ILECs choose stupid L2 technologies such as ATM or > PON, which is locally best for their short term revenue, which, in the long > run, delays global deployment of broadband environment, because of high > cost to the customers. > > Masataka Ohta > > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
