RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I know of two state-wide head ends and one of them has the agreements in place for all their channels. So a new telco coming on needs only to some documents, to be sure, but there's not much (if anything) they need to negotiate directly with a content owner. Frank From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:50 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: Brandon Ross; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com mailto:frnk...@iname.com wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com mailto:br...@pobox.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com mailto:br...@pobox.com ] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567 view=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800 http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I was a lead engineer on a satellite based aeronautical connectivity platform. We sent live video via multicast over our satellite data stream as multicast. The aircraft performed the join and all seat backs had/have live TV (not a demodulator on the plane like domestic carriers, true multicast video). The amount of pain we went through with encryption required by the content providers was nuts. I don't know how they do it on the ground, but we ended up with a sizable PKI at the end of the day. From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Date: 02/09/2013 2:23 PM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Scott Helms' khe...@zcorum.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org,Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I know of two state-wide head ends and one of them has the agreements in place for all their channels. So a new telco coming on needs only to some documents, to be sure, but there's not much (if anything) they need to negotiate directly with a content owner. Frank From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:50 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: Brandon Ross; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com mailto:frnk...@iname.com wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com mailto:br...@pobox.com ] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com mailto:br...@pobox.com ] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567 view=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 03/02/13 05:55, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I've certainly heard FTTH deployers mention that RFoG was important because of the impact on take-rates, which are typically the key variable in the economics. A lot of people have installed gear and subscribed channels and even internal co-ax, and it's helpful if they can plug it in the telly port and the football justworks on all three TVs. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed. A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective. -r
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed. You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs. A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective. Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access. -r -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. -r PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_. Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom [[r...@seastrom.com]] wrote: Scott Helms [[khe...@zcorum.com]] writes: In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed. You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs. A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective. Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access. -r -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 [[http://twitter.com/kscotthelms]]
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT. -r PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_. Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom [[r...@seastrom.com]] wrote: Scott Helms [[khe...@zcorum.com]] writes: In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed. You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs. A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective. Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access. -r -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 [[http://twitter.com/kscotthelms]] -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom [[r...@seastrom.com]] wrote: If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT. Every PON OLT that I have touched has supported both vlan-per-customer (has scaling issues) and vlan-per-service configuration abstractions. There are other ways to do it too (double and triple tagging) but to keep it simple if one creates profiles along the lines of: SP1-VOIP SP1-VIDEO SP1-INTARWEBZ and repeats for sp2, sp3, etc... trunk out the top, split off vlans and backhaul as appropriate (choose wisely!) with appropriate QoS if you like, to equal access provider. Provisioning the ONT/ONU and the inter-provider interface to do so (REST XML? JSON? something else?) is left as an exercise to the implementer. Reading this: https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/gpon/gpon-vlans-and-gem-ports may prove informative for the GPON case. -r
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Robert, Thanks for the information, I either missed VLAN per sub set up which does make PON L2 sharing virtually the same as AE or the version of hardware/firmware I last worked on didn't support it. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com writes: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom [[r...@seastrom.com ]] wrote: If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT. Every PON OLT that I have touched has supported both vlan-per-customer (has scaling issues) and vlan-per-service configuration abstractions. There are other ways to do it too (double and triple tagging) but to keep it simple if one creates profiles along the lines of: SP1-VOIP SP1-VIDEO SP1-INTARWEBZ and repeats for sp2, sp3, etc... trunk out the top, split off vlans and backhaul as appropriate (choose wisely!) with appropriate QoS if you like, to equal access provider. Provisioning the ONT/ONU and the inter-provider interface to do so (REST XML? JSON? something else?) is left as an exercise to the implementer. Reading this: https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/gpon/gpon-vlans-and-gem-ports may prove informative for the GPON case. -r -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567 : capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you. See here: http://www.itvdictionary.com/tv_content_aggregators.html And this company here: http://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Brandon, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you. See here: http://www.itvdictionary.com/**tv_content_aggregators.htmlhttp://www.itvdictionary.com/tv_content_aggregators.html And this company here: http://www.telechannel.tv/**overview.phphttp://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis. There are way more than 100. NCTC has more than 1000 members themselves http://www.nctconline.org/ -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs. Its not, that was kind of the point. What you're pointing out is NOT what I was saying is problematic. I work with companies that get there content from the coop or another aggregator every single day. This is fine and common as dirt: Video_content(from an aggregato or direct)---Muni_operator--End_user What I think Jay and some others were suggesting is: Video_content---Muni_operator---End_user AND/OR ---L1/L2 partner---End_user That last bit where the content is being delivered to the customer of another operator that doesn't have a contract with either the content owner or an aggregator isn't (IMO) possible today. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. I proposed it, and I immediately scratched the idea, when I found out that my notional ISP clients could themselves get it from such vendors to offer at retail. So we can stop trying to make that *particular* type of glue now. :-) 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:46 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Brandon, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. You do really need to read the thread before you post. There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for. Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers. Owen
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. Yeah; I'm not sure what Frank was worried about on this one, either. :-) Your citations were just what I needed, Brandon. Why did you think there was a problem, here, Frank? 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
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote: Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the other triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it? -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model? Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers. Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no? Well, I ain't no NYC, but... :-) 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers. The L0 (ROW, poles conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka City is also a consumer of City 2 City service above L2, and is also a consumer of City 2 Subscriber services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude City as a provider. Eric
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net The L0 (ROW, poles conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka City is also a consumer of City 2 City service above L2, and is also a consumer of City 2 Subscriber services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude City as a provider. The City will be it's own customer for L1 ptp between our facilities, yes. We will also be a customer of the L1 service to provide the L2 service, and that MRC cost-recovery will be included in the L2 cost. While I realize that we could in turn be a competing L3 provider as a customer of the L1/2 provider, I'm loathe to go there if I'm not actually forced to; even moreso than the L2 bump, that's a *big* increase in labor and hence costs, in addition to which I've been convinced here that potential L3 providers will be less likely not to assume The Fix Is In in that case; the City's L3 provider getting an unfair break. If I can't get an LOI as suggested in the posting I just put up, then we may need to be the provider-of-last-resort, at a higher cost to continue to make coming in and competing as a provider. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567:capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays. Frank -Original Message- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote: Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, Digital TV service. See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible. Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800cdvn=newsnewsarticleid=26580 ATT U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider So even the likes of ATT, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure ATT knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/brossSkype: brandonross
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca snip A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.comwrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca snip A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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
RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return (optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with better lasers this could be overcome in the future. Frank From: Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:38 PM To: Frank Bulk (iname.com) Cc: Jay Ashworth; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.com wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca snip A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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 tel:%2B1%20727%20647%201274
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
For us, it would be the economics of the whole thing. When a 16x19.5 EDFA runs around $20k, it's much more cost effective to combine 1550nm onto 16 PON's than onto 16 AE runs. Unless the equipment costs were to fall drastically, there's no way it would ever fly. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.comwrote: IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return (optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with better lasers this could be overcome in the future. ** ** Frank ** ** *From:* Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2013 4:38 PM *To:* Frank Bulk (iname.com) *Cc:* Jay Ashworth; NANOG *Subject:* Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? ** ** Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. ** ** On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.com wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca snip A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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 ** **
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.com What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Not an issue I'd missed. The suggestion of, I believe it was Owen, to run GPON over the home-run fiber, with the splitters at the headend, solves that problem rather nicely, though; the L3+ provider can do whatever they like; if they need GPON to deliver, they (or we) can provision the splitters, and patch through them, back to whatever OLT eqiuvalent they deliver from. In fact, I need to find out the pricing class of the GPON splitters; given what I gather the port count difference is between the line cards on, say, the Calix E7, I might do my own L2 service that way, since the Calix ONTs will take either. I'm working up a what, how and why writeup on this, given my personal set of tradeoffs; I hope to get it up by morning, so no one feels left out on the last Whacky Weekend before the conference (which, dammital, I can't attend, even though it's in Florida for the first time in a decade...). 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Having worked with lots of other municipalities who do the same thing, I think you're 100% right. The L1/L2 solutions are nice to think of, but I don't think in the end it actually works in the real world. The only time a municipality operating in the L1 space has worked well from my experience is when they were selling fiber to other carriers. Which generally meant the only things that the carriers and the municipality cared about and wanted fiber built to was large enterprises, telco spaces, or as middle-mile pieces of another network. I don't think the residential model could actually be financially feasible for any municipality. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. - Original Message - From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. - Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org Cc: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. - Original Message - From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
The Australian NBN plan evolved because, when the Australian government put out the original RFP, the incumbent telcos wanted anti-competitive commitments in exchange for their build-out efforts (sound familiar here in the USA?). The Australian government deemed the original telco RFP replies as non-responsive, and withdrew the RFP, deciding that only the Australian government could build out a national network with broadband local loops to every residence and business. The Australian wholesale model opens the NBN to competitive market forces, as the wholesaled bandwidth costs are the same for all ISPs. So the plan is to make the ISPs compete on customer service features, let the marketplace decide as it were, as they would all have the same wholesale bandwidth charges. For those that argue that a national government plan would never work in the USA, the interstate highway system, and the modern commercial Internet itself refute that argument. The modern Internet was created by the Federal High Speed Computing and Communications Act of 1991, and the original build-out was directed by the National Science Foundation under the management of the White House Office of Technology. Once the commercial Internet was established, it was turned over to the telcos in 1993. The Australian NBN also has plans to possibly turn the network over to private hands once the build-out is established. And the muni build-out model, where a hodge podge of local networks are somehow coordinated such that all residences and businesses are connected, nationwide, at the same price and speed, just will not work. Building from the bottom up is not how today's commercial Internet backbone was created. David On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. This, Jean-Francois, is the assertion I hear relatively frequently. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Art, In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org Cc: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. - Original Message - From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
Scott, Thanks for the warning. I am planning on having those dialogues with any potential vendors, as well as ask them for active references. Art. - Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:54:06 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Art, In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com To: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org Cc: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. - Original Message - From: Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an ISP of last resort, to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. - Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc. Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just packets. Owen
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc. If the municipal provider offers open, settlement-free peering at the head end then the customer *does* have a choice of L3 provider. Tunnel service over IP has only minor differences from an L2 service in such a scenario. Only one difference truthfully: MTU. Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just packets. True enough but rapidly dropping in importance. The 20th century held POTS service with a rare need for a dry copper pair. The 21st holds IP packets with a rare need for dark fiber. Besides, I don't propose that a municipality implement fiber but refuse to unbundle it at any reasonable price. That would be Really Bad. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:47 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:24 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. Perhaps, but well worth the effort. There are a wide variety of reasons to want more than one L3 provider to be readily available and avoid limiting consumers to a single choice of ISP policies, capabilities, etc. If the municipal provider offers open, settlement-free peering at the head end then the customer *does* have a choice of L3 provider. Tunnel service over IP has only minor differences from an L2 service in such a scenario. Only one difference truthfully: MTU. No, they have the municipal provider as a single monopoly L3 provider. While it's true that you can create an L2 service on top of existing L3 service using a tunnel, that doesn't exempt you from the limitations and policies of the underlying L3 provider. Also, an L1/L2 fiber plant may be usable for other services beyond just packets. True enough but rapidly dropping in importance. The 20th century held POTS service with a rare need for a dry copper pair. The 21st holds IP packets with a rare need for dark fiber. We all know these trends run in cycles. Today, the importance of other services is dropping. However, if we should have learned anything from the past development in this industry, it's that planning a 30 year plant around today's realities is virtually guaranteed to be wrong in about 10 years or less. Besides, I don't propose that a municipality implement fiber but refuse to unbundle it at any reasonable price. That would be Really Bad. However, if they're competing for L3 business, it creates a conflict of interest. If they're a monopoly L3 provider, it creates different problems. Owen
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
[ One of a batch of replies to today's traffic; I was busy yanking a 750GB drive out of the grave all day. --jra ] - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ me: ] It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? It doesn't actually matter. You don't necessarily need to be the only wholesale offering, you just need to be open to all service providers. This means that if Road Runner wants to pay for their own infrastructure instead of using yours, then that will increase their costs and likely make it harder for them to compete with ISPs (and other services) that choose to use your infrastructure. It does actually matter, Owen, for the specific build I'm looking at, since *Road Runner already has the city built*; they can do GHz CATV with all the toys, and at least 25/5 cablemodem, if not 50/15. That's pretty competitive, and already includes triple play. What sort of money a build needs to make is of course largely a question of how good a sales job you did to your city commission, but I shouldn't think a small, largely residential, community is gonna make it on *just* businesses and geeks. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote: It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access. What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X. Well, this is a place where Road Runner already *being* built in HFC is a *feature* to me; I'm not going to yank their franchise agreement. The normal behaviour should be: we'll gladly connect to the municipal system. Are there any US examples of that actually happening? A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels. Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers. That's one problem, yes. My solution there is to tap the Third Local ISP, who are already the competitive provider over Bright House, and have them at the letter of intent stage, at least informally, before I go to the council with a proposal. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. And this argument, Bill, plays right into my hands. Thanks. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. Yup; that point hadn't escaped me. That was why I was planning on making sure that first wholesale provider is already signed up when I go to make the sales pitch to the council. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
- Original Message - From: Art Plato apl...@coldwater.org That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. There you go, Art: as the muni, the goal is the *public good*; it can break even, or even lose money, if it increases the tax revenue base by making the city more attractive for both residents and businesses. 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
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:37:24AM -0500, Art Plato wrote: While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. I'm not sure what your particular situation is, but I urge you to look at the hurdles faced by a small business trying to use your infrastructure. Back in the day there were a ton of dial up ISP's. Why? Well, all they had to do was order an IP circuit from someone, a bank of phone lines from another person, and a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and boom, instant ISP. Exclude your muni-fiber for the moment, and consider someone who wants to compete with Charter. They have to get permits to dig up streets, place their own cable to each house, be registered with the state PUC as a result, respond to cable locates, obtain land and build pedistals with power and network to them, etc; all before they can think about turning up a customer. The barrier to entry is way too high. Muni-fiber shold be able to move things much closer to the glory days of dial up, rather than the high barrier to entry the incumbant telcos and cablecos enjoy. Look at your deployment, what are the up front costs to use it? Do you require people to have a minimum number of customers, or a high level of equipment just to connect? What's the level of licensing and taxation imposed by your state? Many of the muni-fiber plants I've read about aren't much better. They are often GPON solutions, and require a minimum number of customers to turn up, purchase of a particular amount of colo space to connect, and so on. Just to turn up the first customer is often in the tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars; and if that is the case the incombants will in. Some of this is beyond the reach of muni-fiber. State PUC's need to have updated rules to encourage these small players in many cases. I think the CALEA requirements need a bit of an overhaul. If the providers want to offer voice or video services there's an entirely different level of red tape. All of these things need to be moderized with muni-fiber deployments, and sadly in many cases the incumbants are using their muscle to make these ancillary problems worse just to keep out new entrants... -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgp51ao3RyNNk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: [ One of a batch of replies to today's traffic; I was busy yanking a 750GB drive out of the grave all day. --jra ] - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ me: ] It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? It doesn't actually matter. You don't necessarily need to be the only wholesale offering, you just need to be open to all service providers. This means that if Road Runner wants to pay for their own infrastructure instead of using yours, then that will increase their costs and likely make it harder for them to compete with ISPs (and other services) that choose to use your infrastructure. It does actually matter, Owen, for the specific build I'm looking at, since *Road Runner already has the city built*; they can do GHz CATV with all the toys, and at least 25/5 cable modem, if not 50/15. You don't think some small scrappy provider using muni fiber with good customer service couldn't come in and start collecting customers from Road Runner? I bet they could. Having muni fiber with an open access policy makes it pretty easy to stand up a local ISP without a lot of up-front investment. Having a single incumbent doesn't strike me as being particularly dangerous to the practicality of muni fiber. That's pretty competitive, and already includes triple play. Competitive by today's pathetic american standards, sure. You wouldn't be able to find a single taker in SE, KR, or many other parts of the developed world. What sort of money a build needs to make is of course largely a question of how good a sales job you did to your city commission, but I shouldn't think a small, largely residential, community is gonna make it on *just* businesses and geeks. No, but most such communities, given a choice, the incumbent wouldn't have too much difficulty losing customers to a competitor. Owen
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 1/29/2013 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. This, Jean-Francois, is the assertion I hear relatively frequently. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Cheers, -- jra If there is competition offering next-gen type services, that they can't reasonably or more easily offer via their existing HFC plant, then I would expect they'd start using the muni network. I think the biggest factor though, would be cost. If using the muni network is cheaper than their own HFC plant, they may actually phase out their HFC network over time. --John
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Jan 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only. Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. This, Jean-Francois, is the assertion I hear relatively frequently. It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? It doesn't actually matter. You don't necessarily need to be the only wholesale offering, you just need to be open to all service providers. This means that if Road Runner wants to pay for their own infrastructure instead of using yours, then that will increase their costs and likely make it harder for them to compete with ISPs (and other services) that choose to use your infrastructure. Owen
Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote: It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access. What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X. The normal behaviour should be: we'll gladly connect to the municipal system. A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have RFoG support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
