Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

2014-08-07 Thread Owen DeLong

On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:

 Is there any way we could stop this discussion until we can get some 
 participants who have experience doing things like emergency post-ice-storm 
 overhead circuit restoration to show up and explain exactly why charging a 
 small one-time fee for a fiber from A to Z is probably not a sustainable 
 model?

I completely agree that XC without MRC is an unsustainable model, but I believe 
only one person proposed that, so I don’t think calling for an end to the 
discussion just because you realize what everyone but one person does is 
warranted.

 In the meantime, I'd like to see the city where an ISP can buy as many of the 
 microducts as they want. I'd like to buy them all, please... though I have no 
 intention of running anything though them, as I'm an investor in the local 
 cable TV company.

Which seems to support my argument for direct fiber PREM-Serving Wire Center.

Owen



Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

2014-08-05 Thread Jay Ashworth
- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

  All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
 
 Nonononono, bad plan. I want a fiber from my home to my storefront on
 main street, but I'm a consumer not a retailer so I can't buy just
 one? Or hey, so sorry but the cable MuniFiber ran to your home is
 under contract to XYZ corp. They have to release it before we at ABC
 corp can provide you service.

Well, yeah; I actually agree with most of that.

My plan, to recap it from '12, was this:

You can rent, for an MRC (probably plus a deposit):

1) L2 connectivity to a property, talking to an ONT supplied by the utility,
that is a virtual circuit to the prem, and delivered to you as (I think)
QinQ.  That is: you get a completely clean Ethernet connection, over which
you can run IPv4 or IPv6, with whatever addressing you want, to a GigE port
on the ONT, as long as the customer has one free.  If the customer wants
their 4 ports to go to 4 different ISPs?  Fine.

2) L1 connectivity to a property, over any available pair provisioned
to that address -- I was planning on 3 pair drops for 1-3 unit properties,
and a declining overbuild from 2 down to about 1.2 pairs per unit for
stripcenters and apartment buildings and the like.  Obviously, this will
cost more, as it's a more limited resource.  This would allow you to plug
the fiber directly into your switch at both ends, and we'll just xconn
the two drops in the fiber room.

3) If you're really motivated for some reason, with an even larger 
deposit, we will have our contractor pull your fiber into our conduits,
running from wherever you need to go to wherever else you need to go.
This would be a contractual setup, I suspect, as it needs to handle
title in case of abandonment, and like that.  Presumably, it would
not carry an MRC, unless it appears in our fiber room (which it 
probably should), in which case a nominal charge for the jumper and
any NRCs for special work.  I can't see why anyone would actually
need this, but I mention it for completeness sake -- I plan to
preprovision additional trunking in strategic places, so we can
get more than 3 pairs someplace should we really need it; fiber's
(mostly) cheap; crews are expensive.

As I noted originally, I think providing L2 service is useful as it
(sharply) reduces the barrier-to-entry to smaller boutique ISP 
services, at the cost of their perhaps being at our mercy for upgrades
and such.  If we do our job properly, I don't think too many such
speed bumps would affect such people.  We're pretty far along the
development curve now; anyone who thinks symmetrical gigabit isn't 
enough either has never used it (with a good backhaul), or needs
to be on Internet2.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274


Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

2014-08-05 Thread Matthew Kaufman
Is there any way we could stop this discussion until we can get some 
participants who have experience doing things like emergency 
post-ice-storm overhead circuit restoration to show up and explain 
exactly why charging a small one-time fee for a fiber from A to Z is 
probably not a sustainable model?


In the meantime, I'd like to see the city where an ISP can buy as many 
of the microducts as they want. I'd like to buy them all, please... 
though I have no intention of running anything though them, as I'm an 
investor in the local cable TV company.


Matthew Kaufman


Re: Remooted: a deployment design for Muni Fiber (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

2014-08-05 Thread Rob Seastrom

Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at writes:

 In the meantime, I'd like to see the city where an ISP can buy as many
 of the microducts as they want. I'd like to buy them all,
 please... though I have no intention of running anything though them,
 as I'm an investor in the local cable TV company.

The fire ants have beaten you to it and they don't take kindly to
people running fiber through their living room.

(SFW but kind of disgusting):
http://www.rainbowtech.net/products/docs/c51ce4107047eb1b2dc/Ants%20in%20OSP%20Equipment.pdf.pdf

-r