Re: [AFMUG] Indoor ONT fiber

[fiberrun]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 Craig Schmaderer wrote:
> Anyone have a good source for UniCam SC APC ends that don’t cost $17 a piece?
 
FYI, Fiberstore sells field installable SC/APC connectors for three bucks a 
pop. You can probably get them in bulk for about a buck each. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Spam from Chuck

[fiberrun]

> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Spam from Chuck
>
> You do realize that this list is my list, right?
  No, I did not know that. It doesn't say so when you sign up for the list. 

> So essentially every time I make a posting here I am spamming you, right?
  Participating on the list isn't quite the same as inboxing me directly with a 
canned message. 

> I used to do it every Friday right here on this list.
  Your list, your rules. I still don't think it's cool to send out unsolicited 
commercial messages without an opt-in. Furthermore industry best practices 
include using a double opt-in. Mailchimp support double opt-in: 
https://kb.mailchimp.com/lists/signup-forms/about-double-opt-in

  In summary: I did not know that by joining the Af list I would, unbeknownst 
to me and surreptitiously, be signed up for another direct email list. 

Jared

[AFMUG] Spam from Chuck

[fiberrun]

I just got spammed by Chuck McCown. What's up with that?

I sure as hell haven't signed up for any of his email lists nor done any 
business with him, or even indicate I would like to. I find it in extremely 
poor taste to mine the Af list for spam targets. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT

[fiberrun]

It's trivial to convert a homerun active Ethernet network into a PON network. 

Not so the other way. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT

That's also a compelling point.
 
It's not a simple question for sure.  
 
The other reason I would think about GPON is that if a larger company wanted to 
purchase our network down the road I have to think about what THEY will prefer. 
 They'll probably prefer PON. 
 
Humans are horrible at assessing their own biases, but I probably have a bias 
towards ethernet because it's familiar.  I try to bear that in mind too.
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: 2/12/2018 1:13:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT
 

When doing full throttle Calix GPON we have about $570 invested in cpe 
electronics, splitter, ont/olt/onu etc.  Everything but fiber and outdoor 
cabinets. 
 
When doing active Ethernet you can come in closer to $100 per customer. 
For non regulated greenfield, I am having a hard time convincing myself to do 
PON. 

 

From: Mark - Myakka Technologies
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:09 AM
To: Chuck McCown
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT
 
Chuck,

PLC splitter in spice case doing full fusion splicing.

--
Best regards,
Mark    mailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com[http://www.MyakkaTech.com]

--

Monday, February 12, 2018, 12:09:32 PM, you wrote:
 
 Are you using splitters in splice cases or in cross connect boxes?

From: Mark - Myakka Technologies
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Adam Moffett
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT

Adam,

There are some ranging things you have to consider.  "The requirement
when deploying ONTs are the maximum distance between two ONTs cannot
exceed 20Km."

The way we have done this is to reuse fibers as we travel down long stretches 
of roads between neighborhoods.

We will deploy a 1x32 splitter in the field. We will splice that into the last 
3 ribbons/tubes of our fiber.  Example, if we were using a 144 count cable, 
ribbons 10-12 will be spliced into.  After a few miles depending on density or 
distance, we will splice in another 1x32 splitter to ribbons 10-12.  We just 
keep doing this until we run out of light budget. 

We build to the lots passed, so we are not trying to optimize max usage per 
port.  Currently, we average about 50% utilization on our ports.





--
Best regards,
Mark    mailto:m...@mailmt.com[mailto:m...@mailmt.com]

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com[http://www.MyakkaTech.com]

--

Monday, February 12, 2018, 11:38:39 AM, you wrote:
 
 Maybe I need to review the math.

I was figuring on several small splitters along the route.  I didn't compare to 
a 1x32 in the cabinet because I figured if I brought every fiber back to the 
cabinet then I didn't save anything versus ethernet.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mark - Myakka Technologies" 
To: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: 2/12/2018 11:30:46 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT
 
 Adam,

How far are you going?  We are pushing almost 20 miles on a 1x32 split.  Are 
you using one 1x32 or multiple smaller splitters?

--
Best regards,
Mark    mailto:m...@mailmt.com[mailto:m...@mailmt.com]

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com[http://www.MyakkaTech.com]

--

Sunday, February 11, 2018, 10:24:30 PM, you wrote:
 
 I'm looking at rural areas (like a few houses per mile).  As I'm looking at 
hypothetical power budgets for PON, I'm finding that if I run the line down the 
road and put splitters on the pole I can split 5-6 times and then I'm getting 
too low on db to keep going down the road.  At 5 or so houses per port, a 1U, 8 
port ONT is no denser than a 1U switch.

Your stated reasons for PON are all correct.  The numbers just aren't seeming 
to work out for me.

I also figure if I install enough fibers for AE, I can still switch to PON some 
day if I want to.

We would never max out the PON port, but looking back on the past 15 years of 
growth in consumption I wonder if I should ever say "never". In AE I can put 
100Gig in every house if I have to.  I'll "never" have to do that as far as I 
can imagine, but my imagination could be limited.

-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "Josh Reynolds" 
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: 2/11/2018 9:28:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Outdoor PON OLT
 
 A few reasons...

Port cost is still fairly high.

More splicing.

More fiber required.

Larger chassis required.

More power required.

More battery backup required.

Consumers not even close to using up 1-2 generations back of PON capacity in 
most places.

On Sun, Feb 11, 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

"Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
  Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's bill, 
given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?

> Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, 
> etc etc.
  At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other costs. So, 
tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill? 

> This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while recouping 
> that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix - 
> basically the reverse of what they currently do. 
  I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait until 
Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and 
associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  
wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of 
bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 

To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 

 wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 

 wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 

 wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
 wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
The Brothers 
WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]]


 


From: "Ron M." 
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
 wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth has 
gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
 wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
 
wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
 wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Ron M." 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!
 
On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access 
to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 

Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted to. 
Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with.
 Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll just 
keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN.

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.
 
The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from all the 
rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever predisposition 
> you have to the issue.
  Obvious I have my own biases, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong :)

  Now, I never claimed I was impartial or unbiased, but the article in question 
does not rise to the standard of "best NN article" or even try to be impartial 
or unbiased in any way. A lot of what Dan writes is true, but I do take 
exception to a lot of the framing and editorialization. It completely ignores 
the primary issues, the facts of termination monopoly and how lacking last mile 
competition influences network neutrality, while subtly laying the blame on 
other secondary issues. 


> "Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue."
> That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though.
  Well, most people are idiots, so that doesn't count for much :)

  Jesting aside, the Internet order explicitly says:

  "30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to 
interconnection."

  Thus anybody claiming otherwise should just shut up. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> I don't see 
> where he's blaming transit providers for anything. 
  See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent. 

> The transit provider 
> was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
> of, but which complicates the discussion.
  It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two separate 
issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections. If you want to 
talk about network neutrality, talk about network neutrality. Don't bring 
peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue. 

>  It's also an example of a way 
> the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
> transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so they 
> don't count.
  That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing with 
your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get your packets 
onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them. 

  It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit providers to 
have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply don't align. Far 
likelier is that the ISP would simply let their transits run hot to create 
congestion. 

  Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different kettle of 
fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted out, some of the 
problems will move to interconnection issues. 


> Can you point out the straw man?
  Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
  - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about more 
competition, so don't demand network neutrality. 
  - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network neutrality
  - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network neutrality
  - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't demand 
network neutrality 
  - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore termination 
monopolies, significant market power and don't demand network neutrality 
  - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, don't 
demand network neutrality 
  - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be imposed

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html

Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. 

Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, completely 
ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive market whereas last 
mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just silly. 

The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is stocking up 
for a Guy Fawkes festival. 

Jared


 

Re: [AFMUG] WDM Stupid Question

[fiberrun]

> If I had four different colors of CWDM SFP modules, obviously I could use a 
> CWDM Mux to connect all of them to the same fiber.  Would a 
> 1x4 PLC splitter also work?  
  No, because the CWDM SFP RX side is not wavelength selective. That's why you 
use the demux to separate the wavelengths. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[fiberrun]

Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels available, but 
a vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an ABAB 
pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can only 
support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients requires 
new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do more 
than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported. 


Website and datasheet:
https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-BF-sector-datasheet.pdf

Jared


 

Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
From: "Ryan Ray" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work? Can I 
put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit coverage in 
60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse work? Same range as 
the existing point to point model?
 
So many applications if this is all the case. 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs

[fiberrun]

Sure, but why/how/which part is substandard?

Jared

> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
>
> iProvo sold out (gave the system away) to Google.  Still substandard.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 11:01 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> 
> That's interesting. Can you share more details about being a service 
> provider on the iProvo and AF networks? In what way we're they substandard?
> 
> Jared
> 
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
> > From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> > To: "af@afmug.com" 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > I agree with that.
> >
> > The numbers never added up. iProvo never added up, Utopia never added up, 
> > Amercian Fork system numbers never made any sense.
> >
> > I was a network provider on iProvo and AF networks for a while and sold 
> > them off since they were always substandard and profit was driven to 
> > minimum.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 10:46 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > Here is an editorial in the Deseret News today.  It is just an opinion.
> >
> > And I know Roger has been a reader of this list (Roger runs UTOPIA).
> >
> > But I have always been against municipal ISPs on principle.  Some things 
> > the government is good at, some things they are not good at.
> >
> > Roads and Streets == OK
> > Police and Fire == OK
> > EMS = OK but there are private providers that are OK too.
> > Water and Sewer = OK but there are many private systems Power and Gas = 
> > Meh  -  I work in a city that has sold off their power and gas to private 
> > because it was not a revenue center and they had lots of power 
> > distribution problems.
> >
> > Telecommunications != OK
> >
> > They almost always seem to be problematic.  And they compete with all of 
> > you
> > (us) folks that can do a better job.   (Sorry Roger, but that is my
> > opinion).
> >
> >
> > BY BILLY HESTERMAN
> >
> > FOR THE DESERET NEWS
> >
> > A longstanding principle of the Utah Taxpayers Association is if a service 
> > can be found in the yellow pages, then government shouldn’t be providing 
> > it.
> > We have seen far too many times where government attempts to compete with 
> > the private sector and ends up wasting taxpayer money. One prime example 
> > of this is the failed UTOPIA boondoggle that continues to plague the 11 
> > cities that created the entity.
> >
> > On Aug. 14, the Utah Infrastructure Agency, which was created in 2011 to 
> > give UTOPIA more borrowing capacity, will vote on taking out a $13 million 
> > bond to further build out the UTOPIA network in hopes of making the whole 
> > effort profitable. The vote will likely pass but the effort to make UTOPIA 
> > and UIA a success for taxpayers will never be realized.
> >
> > This attempt to continue to send money after a bad idea has to stop.
> >
> > The private sector is already providing the same service that can be 
> > obtained through UTOPIA and it is past time that the local governments 
> > that created this mess find a way out.
> >
> > Recently, the University of Pennsylvania released a study that examined 20 
> > municipally owned fiber networks from across the nation; UTOPIA was 
> > included in the study.
> >
> > The report found that a majority of these networks struggle to recover the 
> > costs that were incurred to build them. It went on to show that of the 20 
> > projects, only nine have had a positive revenue stream but that of those 
> > nine, five are generating returns so small that it would take more than 
> > 100 years for the project costs to be recovered. Only two of the 20 
> > networks are expected to earn enough to cover their project costs during 
> > the useful life of the networks.
> >
> > The Penn report went on to state that these government-owned ventures 
> > struggle to ever make a profit and put taxpayers in danger of seeing their 
> > local government increase debt, lose bond rating status and elected 
> > officials becoming distracted from other important issues because they are 
> > solely focused on the government’s fiber business. The report found that 
> > if UTOPIA continues in its current state, that the project will likely 
> > never turn a profit. It observed in a five-year span from 2010-2014 that 
> > the network only obtained 11,000 subscribers and that with a low 
> > subscription take the network was realizing less than $30 in revenue per 
> > household in the cities that make up UTOPIA. That is well below the $446 
> > per household benchmark  achieved by other projects that the report looked 
> > at.
> >
> > I am often asked why the Utah Taxpayers Association cares so 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs

[fiberrun]

True, but it would be nice to have the real, up to date data and projections on 
all the projects. 

Jared

> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
>
> Well in the case of UTOPIA, it has been running a long time.  And the 
> numbers are regularly published out here.  It is a financial mess for 
> certain.  Not much wiggle room in the facts of the situation.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:50 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> 
> I've also read rebuttals and critiques of that same report, all without 
> adding too much clarity to the issue. For sure the report has some 
> shortfalls and errors, but the whole thing is turning more or less into a he 
> said, she said mess. It'd be real nice to have a proper long term analysis 
> using up to date hard data from an independent source.
> 
> Jared
> 
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
> > From: "Layne Sisk" 
> > To: "af@afmug.com" 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > Here is the study: 
> > https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an
> >
> > Layne Sisk
> > ServerPlus
> > 801.426.8283, ext 102
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:17 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > iProvo sold out (gave the system away) to Google.  Still substandard.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: fiber...@mail.com
> > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 11:01 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > That's interesting. Can you share more details about being a service 
> > provider on the iProvo and AF networks? In what way we're they 
> > substandard?
> >
> > Jared
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
> > > From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> > > To: "af@afmug.com" 
> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> > >
> > > I agree with that.
> > >
> > > The numbers never added up. iProvo never added up, Utopia never added
> > > up, Amercian Fork system numbers never made any sense.
> > >
> > > I was a network provider on iProvo and AF networks for a while and
> > > sold them off since they were always substandard and profit was driven
> > > to minimum.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 10:46 AM
> > > To: af@afmug.com
> > > Subject: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> > >
> > > Here is an editorial in the Deseret News today.  It is just an opinion.
> > >
> > > And I know Roger has been a reader of this list (Roger runs UTOPIA).
> > >
> > > But I have always been against municipal ISPs on principle.  Some
> > > things the government is good at, some things they are not good at.
> > >
> > > Roads and Streets == OK
> > > Police and Fire == OK
> > > EMS = OK but there are private providers that are OK too.
> > > Water and Sewer = OK but there are many private systems Power and Gas
> > > = Meh  -  I work in a city that has sold off their power and gas to
> > > private because it was not a revenue center and they had lots of power
> > > distribution problems.
> > >
> > > Telecommunications != OK
> > >
> > > They almost always seem to be problematic.  And they compete with all
> > > of you
> > > (us) folks that can do a better job.   (Sorry Roger, but that is my
> > > opinion).
> > >
> > >
> > > BY BILLY HESTERMAN
> > >
> > > FOR THE DESERET NEWS
> > >
> > > A longstanding principle of the Utah Taxpayers Association is if a
> > > service can be found in the yellow pages, then government shouldn’t be
> > > providing it.
> > > We have seen far too many times where government attempts to compete
> > > with the private sector and ends up wasting taxpayer money. One prime
> > > example of this is the failed UTOPIA boondoggle that continues to
> > > plague the 11 cities that created the entity.
> > >
> > > On Aug. 14, the Utah Infrastructure Agency, which was created in 2011
> > > to give UTOPIA more borrowing capacity, will vote on taking out a $13
> > > million bond to further build out the UTOPIA network in hopes of
> > > making the whole effort profitable. The vote will likely pass but the
> > > effort to make UTOPIA and UIA a success for taxpayers will never be 
> > > realized.
> > >
> > > This attempt to continue to send money after a bad idea has to stop.
> > >
> > > The private sector is already providing the same service that can be
> > > obtained through UTOPIA and it is past time that the local governments
> > > that created this mess find a way out.
> > >
> > > Recently, the University of Pennsylvania released a 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs

[fiberrun]

I've also read rebuttals and critiques of that same report, all without adding 
too much clarity to the issue. For sure the report has some shortfalls and 
errors, but the whole thing is turning more or less into a he said, she said 
mess. It'd be real nice to have a proper long term analysis using up to date 
hard data from an independent source. 

Jared

> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 
> From: "Layne Sisk" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
>
> Here is the study:  
> https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an
>  
> 
> Layne Sisk
> ServerPlus
> 801.426.8283, ext 102
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 10:17 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> 
> iProvo sold out (gave the system away) to Google.  Still substandard.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 11:01 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> 
> That's interesting. Can you share more details about being a service provider 
> on the iProvo and AF networks? In what way we're they substandard?
> 
> Jared
> 
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
> > From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> > To: "af@afmug.com" 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > I agree with that.
> >
> > The numbers never added up. iProvo never added up, Utopia never added 
> > up, Amercian Fork system numbers never made any sense.
> >
> > I was a network provider on iProvo and AF networks for a while and 
> > sold them off since they were always substandard and profit was driven 
> > to minimum.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 10:46 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> >
> > Here is an editorial in the Deseret News today.  It is just an opinion.
> >
> > And I know Roger has been a reader of this list (Roger runs UTOPIA).
> >
> > But I have always been against municipal ISPs on principle.  Some 
> > things the government is good at, some things they are not good at.
> >
> > Roads and Streets == OK
> > Police and Fire == OK
> > EMS = OK but there are private providers that are OK too.
> > Water and Sewer = OK but there are many private systems Power and Gas 
> > = Meh  -  I work in a city that has sold off their power and gas to 
> > private because it was not a revenue center and they had lots of power 
> > distribution problems.
> >
> > Telecommunications != OK
> >
> > They almost always seem to be problematic.  And they compete with all 
> > of you
> > (us) folks that can do a better job.   (Sorry Roger, but that is my
> > opinion).
> >
> >
> > BY BILLY HESTERMAN
> >
> > FOR THE DESERET NEWS
> >
> > A longstanding principle of the Utah Taxpayers Association is if a 
> > service can be found in the yellow pages, then government shouldn’t be 
> > providing it.
> > We have seen far too many times where government attempts to compete 
> > with the private sector and ends up wasting taxpayer money. One prime 
> > example of this is the failed UTOPIA boondoggle that continues to 
> > plague the 11 cities that created the entity.
> >
> > On Aug. 14, the Utah Infrastructure Agency, which was created in 2011 
> > to give UTOPIA more borrowing capacity, will vote on taking out a $13 
> > million bond to further build out the UTOPIA network in hopes of 
> > making the whole effort profitable. The vote will likely pass but the 
> > effort to make UTOPIA and UIA a success for taxpayers will never be 
> > realized.
> >
> > This attempt to continue to send money after a bad idea has to stop.
> >
> > The private sector is already providing the same service that can be 
> > obtained through UTOPIA and it is past time that the local governments 
> > that created this mess find a way out.
> >
> > Recently, the University of Pennsylvania released a study that 
> > examined 20 municipally owned fiber networks from across the nation; 
> > UTOPIA was included in the study.
> >
> > The report found that a majority of these networks struggle to recover 
> > the costs that were incurred to build them. It went on to show that of 
> > the 20 projects, only nine have had a positive revenue stream but that 
> > of those nine, five are generating returns so small that it would take 
> > more than
> > 100 years for the project costs to be recovered. Only two of the 20 
> > networks are expected to earn enough to cover their project costs 
> > during the useful life of the networks.
> >
> > The Penn report went on to state that these government-owned ventures 
> > struggle to ever make a profit and put taxpayers in danger of seeing 
> > their local government increase 

Re: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

[fiberrun]

I don't know how much of that is marketing bullshit, but Elva has a news item 
up on their website where they claim to have installed a 6.3 mile production 
link in Moscow. 

Jared 
 
 

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

That'll go about 2 miles, I assume.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 11:52:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

ELVA-1 has an E-band radio which they claim will do full duplex 10G up to 12 
miles with 2' dishes.

Jared
 
 

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017
From: "Steve Jones" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

Im guessing there is no realistic (cost competitive to fiber) option aside from 
fiber to move this kind of bandwidth, or is there?
 
Fiber would require traversing 2 state highways and a railroad track, so there 
is that.

Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs

[fiberrun]

That's interesting. Can you share more details about being a service provider 
on the iProvo and AF networks? In what way we're they substandard?

Jared

> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
>
> I agree with that.
> 
> The numbers never added up. iProvo never added up, Utopia never added up, 
> Amercian Fork system numbers never made any sense.
> 
> I was a network provider on iProvo and AF networks for a while and sold them 
> off since they were always substandard and profit was driven to minimum.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 10:46 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] OT Municipally funded ISPs
> 
> Here is an editorial in the Deseret News today.  It is just an opinion.
> 
> And I know Roger has been a reader of this list (Roger runs UTOPIA).
> 
> But I have always been against municipal ISPs on principle.  Some things the 
> government is good at, some things they are not good at.
> 
> Roads and Streets == OK
> Police and Fire == OK
> EMS = OK but there are private providers that are OK too.
> Water and Sewer = OK but there are many private systems Power and Gas = Meh  
> -  I work in a city that has sold off their power and gas to private because 
> it was not a revenue center and they had lots of power distribution problems.
> 
> Telecommunications != OK
> 
> They almost always seem to be problematic.  And they compete with all of you 
> (us) folks that can do a better job.   (Sorry Roger, but that is my 
> opinion).
> 
> 
> BY BILLY HESTERMAN
> 
> FOR THE DESERET NEWS
> 
> A longstanding principle of the Utah Taxpayers Association is if a service 
> can be found in the yellow pages, then government shouldn’t be providing it. 
> We have seen far too many times where government attempts to compete with the 
> private sector and ends up wasting taxpayer money. One prime example of this 
> is the failed UTOPIA boondoggle that continues to plague the 11 cities that 
> created the entity.
> 
> On Aug. 14, the Utah Infrastructure Agency, which was created in 2011 to give 
> UTOPIA more borrowing capacity, will vote on taking out a $13 million bond to 
> further build out the UTOPIA network in hopes of making the whole effort 
> profitable. The vote will likely pass but the effort to make UTOPIA and UIA a 
> success for taxpayers will never be realized.
> 
> This attempt to continue to send money after a bad idea has to stop.
> 
> The private sector is already providing the same service that can be obtained 
> through UTOPIA and it is past time that the local governments that created 
> this mess find a way out.
> 
> Recently, the University of Pennsylvania released a study that examined 20 
> municipally owned fiber networks from across the nation; UTOPIA was included 
> in the study.
> 
> The report found that a majority of these networks struggle to recover the 
> costs that were incurred to build them. It went on to show that of the 20 
> projects, only nine have had a positive revenue stream but that of those 
> nine, five are generating returns so small that it would take more than 100 
> years for the project costs to be recovered. Only two of the 20 networks are 
> expected to earn enough to cover their project costs during the useful life 
> of the networks.
> 
> The Penn report went on to state that these government-owned ventures 
> struggle to ever make a profit and put taxpayers in danger of seeing their 
> local government increase debt, lose bond rating status and elected officials 
> becoming distracted from other important issues because they are solely 
> focused on the government’s fiber business. The report found that if UTOPIA 
> continues in its current state, that the project will likely never turn a 
> profit. It observed in a five-year span from 2010-2014 that the network only 
> obtained 11,000 subscribers and that with a low subscription take the network 
> was realizing less than $30 in revenue per household in the cities that make 
> up UTOPIA. That is well below the $446 per household benchmark  achieved by 
> other projects that the report looked at.
> 
> I am often asked why the Utah Taxpayers Association cares so deeply about the 
> UTOPIA issue. One statement from the Penn report sums up why we have taken 
> the position we have as the report states, “Many cities managing these 
> projects have faced defaults, reductions in bond ratings, and ongoing 
> liability, not to mention the toll that troubled municipal broadband ventures 
> can take on city leaders in terms of personal turmoil and distraction from 
> other matters important to citizens. City leaders should carefully assess all 
> of these costs and risks before permitting a municipal fiber program to go 
> forward.”
> 
> The risks and consequences are too much for taxpayers to 

Re: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

[fiberrun]

ELVA-1 has an E-band radio which they claim will do full duplex 10G up to 12 
miles with 2' dishes. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 
From: "Steve Jones" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] moving 10gbps 12 miles

Im guessing there is no realistic (cost competitive to fiber) option aside from 
fiber to move this kind of bandwidth, or is there?
 
Fiber would require traversing 2 state highways and a railroad track, so there 
is that.

Re: [AFMUG] Muni F I B E R

[fiberrun]

I think you got the numbers wrong. The article says 40% of the buildout will 
pass 2600 serviceable addresses, not that they will spend $21M to pass those 
2600 addresses. The city has 18k residents plus 30k more in the burbs. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 
From: "Lewis Bergman" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Muni F I B E R

How about a little context? Westminster muni dark 
fiber[https://insidetowers.com/westminster-future-proofs-dark-fiber-network/?utm_source=Inside+Towers+List_campaign=217214801e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_20_medium=email_term=0_af16c4fc22-217214801e-91496749=0_af16c4fc22-217214801e-91496749]
Of all the gubment cheese way of doing things I hate this the least.
 

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:24 AM Lewis Bergman 
 wrote:
Got the title right this time. Man...slightly over $8000 per address passed. 
That seems really steep. No wonder nobody wanted to do it. If they get 80% of 
addresses passed that is a bit over $10k per customer. 
 
What is you fiber guys experience overlaying FTTH over non FTTH delivery?

Re: [AFMUG] So Silicon Valley WISP startup gets $7M investment?

[fiberrun]

Will either of those protocols actually scale to a reasonable number of nodes?

Jared
 

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] So Silicon Valley WISP startup gets $7M investment?

With 60 ghz cheap radios and TRILL or SPB, I believe the multi backhaul Mesh 
coulee be feasible. 
 
From: Af  on behalf of 
"p...@believewireless.net[mailto:p...@believewireless.net]; 

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; 

Date: Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:34 AM
To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] So Silicon Valley WISP startup gets $7M investment?
 

Years ago there was a product called, from what I remember, ClearMesh that was 
very cool. It had 3 FSO
links built into that automatically tracked and found new mesh sites. It had an 
ethernet port that could be
fed fiber or to a customer. Range was something like 200M and cost ~$7,000 
each. Could probably be done
a cheaper and more reliable with 24/60GHz. They were hyping it for a couple 
years and I think it only was
on the market for less then a year before they went belly up.
 
 

 
Gino A. Villarini

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Robert 
 wrote:I tried to work 
with an Orbi setup but the configuration was locked up against it's own config 
controls..  i.e. broken.   It uses _All_ of the top and bottom of the 5 Ghz 
spectrum and no way to move it's usage around.

On 6/24/17 7:41 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:Netgear Orbi does that with 4x4 MU-MIMO 
and multiple radios. Spendy though.

- Josh

On Jun 24, 2017 9:26 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> wrote:

    I agree with you  I don't know how many times I've had to
    explain to people why mesh doesn't work well.  And have seen
    numerous startups fail who think their magic routing voodoo will
    make this work.   It is one of those technologies which just
    intuitively seems like should work, but doesn't for so many
    different reasons.

    At some point someone is going to build a multi-radio beamforming
    system which will actually result in the promise of mesh being
    fulfilled without actually using what I would call mesh.   With
    beamforming and distinct radios, one could conceptionally build a
    dynamic point to point backhaul system.

    On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Rory Conaway
    > wrote:

        So someone rediscovered mesh?  Umm, yea.  $7M down the tubes.

        Rory

        -Original Message-
        From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
        ] On Behalf 
Of Faisal Imtiaz
        Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 2:41 PM
        To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com] 

        Subject: Re: [AFMUG] So Silicon Valley WISP startup gets $7M
        investment?

         > They advertise 75 Mbps symmetrical service.  What radio will
        do this?

        All kidding aside, and while I am not going to specifically
        comment on this particular story

        Having said that, you all should take a closer look at what Kent
        Urwiller has been doing with his WISP, using Mimosa Gear. (Micro
        Pops w/fat backhauls).

        His posts with a great amount of details can be found in the
        Mimosa Group and RF Elements group on Facebook.

        Here is a small snippet from one of his recent posts.. "...
        Pretty dang amazing really. We are seeing around 130-150 Mbps on
        a 40 MHz channel to each client thanks to 2.3 and C5c. .."


        :)

        Faisal Imtiaz
        Snappy Internet & Telecom
        7266 SW 48 Street
        Miami, FL 33155
        Tel: 305 663 5518[tel:305 663 5518] x 232 

        Help-desk: (305)663-5518[tel:(305)663-5518]  
Option 2 or
        Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net[mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net]

        - Original Message -
         > From: ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com] 

         > To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com] 

         > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 4:54:19 PM
         > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] So Silicon Valley WISP startup gets $7M
        investment?

         > "We use FCC-approved antennas that transmit data using 5 GHz
        signals,
         > similar to 

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi. 
  The title of your post is Muni WiFi. 

> As for the  cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay 
> themselves.
> They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still taxes 
> pay them.
  I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue tax 
finance bonds. 

  If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as only 
revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government isn't even on 
the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds. 

  Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily mean 
there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network users 
will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes into play 
if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay the bond 
payments. 

  So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the cheese is 
never seen nor used?

Jared

> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
> From: "Lewis Bergman" 
> 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
>
> I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
>
> *Colorado*
> *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> —is
> considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
> own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> reports *Community
> Networks.*
>
> The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
> could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
>
> In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
> building out their own networks.
>
> Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
> the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
> city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> Networks* that
> voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> around to do it yet?’”
>

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[fiberrun]

According to reports they are building a muni fiber network, not a Muni WiFi 
network. Is it also gubment cheese if they are borrowing money by bonding?


Jared

> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 
> From: "Lewis Bergman" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
>
> I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
> 
> *Colorado*
> *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> —is
> considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
> own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> reports *Community
> Networks.*
> 
> The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
> could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
> 
> In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
> building out their own networks.
> 
> Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
> the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
> city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> Networks* that
> voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> around to do it yet?’”
>

Re: [AFMUG] Backhauling fiber 80 miles at 10Gig

[fiberrun]

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 
From: "Paul McCall" 
> What equipment can we use (cost efficient) to light up 80 miles of dark fiber 
> at 10gbit?
  You can buy 10G XFPs rated at 75 miles (120 km). However, this won't do you 
much good if you are outside the optical budget or the chromatic dispersion 
limits. To know what your options are you really need to characterize your 
fiber first. 

Furthermore your design will depend on your upgrade roadmap. Will you only ever 
use one 10G wavelength or will there be more down the line?

If you'll need multiple 10G wavelengths then you are looking at an amplified 
DWDM setup with chromatic dispersion compensation. 

If you are ok with a single 10G only then you can look at trying that 75 mile 
XFP (perhaps with a small amp and some chromatic compensation) or even 
aggregating 1G waves using 200 km CWDM SFPs. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone familiar with the highest capacity Microwave Radio Ever?

[fiberrun]

What alternative reality is this ad from? There are a few 10 Gbps radios out 
there. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017
From: "Rory Conaway" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] Anyone familiar with the highest capacity Microwave Radio Ever?

WTM 4000

http://s214106484.t.en25.com/e/es?s=214106484=2613=4956d41eca78444a9dd67ae96217210b=ec8b41f8c57a4a11b26adb8741316357=334=1
 
Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542[tel:602-426-0542]
r...@triadwireless.net[mailto:r...@triadwireless.net]
www.triadwireless.net[http://www.triadwireless.net/]
 
“First rule of Racing, whats behind you does not count.” – Gregory White
 

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

[fiberrun]

No, generally speaking there is no crossvendor compatibility with GPON. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
Interesting, are these open standards? Looks like they're sold out of the ONT.

On Thursday, March 23, 2017, Chuck Hogg 
 wrote:
Was/is on the UBNT beta store now...
 

Regards,
Chuck 
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:But when is this actually going to be 
available?

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, Keefe John  wrote:
How does it compare to UBNT new uFiber OLT?
8-Port GPON Optical Line Terminal

8 Gigabit Passive Optical Network Ports
Supports up to 1024 Clients (128 per PON Port)
Up to 2.488 Gbps TX and 1.244 Gbps RX
Supports up to 20 km GPON Links
Two 1G/10G SFP+ Ethernet Ports
Flexible Layer 2/3 Management Features
FastEthernet port for management
Console serial port for management
 
On 3/22/2017 5:02 PM, PE R wrote:

If anyone has any questions regarding ZTE products, to include our GPON, TDD 
LTE or transport products, please feel free to contact me.
 
Best -
 
Parker Reed
Director of Sales
ZTE USA

Re: [AFMUG] Best switch for bonding dual 10Gbps radio links

[fiberrun]

I thought that Ignitenet switch only came with one 10G port? And that it's not 
yet available?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best switch for bonding dual 10Gbps radio links

I'd look at IgniteNet's new TRILL switch.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Rory Conaway" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:30:07 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Best switch for bonding dual 10Gbps radio links

Lots of options today and redundancy with the switches wouldn’t be a bad thing 
either. 
 
Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542[tel:602-426-0542]
r...@triadwireless.net[mailto:r...@triadwireless.net]
www.triadwireless.net[http://www.triadwireless.net/]
 
“An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; 
and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be”
 

Re: [AFMUG] FISPA conference

[fiberrun]

Paul,

Putting aside the advocacy/policy work and the conference for a minute, could 
you tell us how do you feel being a member of FISPA has benefitted you or your 
company?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] FISPA conference

Guys,
 
Just throwing this out there.  If you are doing FTTX or even with your towers, 
you should consider joining FISPA.  They are parallel organization to WISPA and 
our fighting for our seat at the table with legislators.  A LOT is up in the 
air right now regulatory wise, and supporting them ultimately also supports us 
ISPs. 
 
Paul
 
Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800[tel:772-564-6800] 
pa...@pdmnet.net[mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net]
www.pdmnet.com[http://www.pdmnet.com]
www.floridabroadband.com[http://www.floridabroadband.com]
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] Switch with 12 SFP's

[fiberrun]

Well, there's always the CCR1016-12S-1S+. 

Jared

On Friday, February 03, 2017 Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> I noticedbut I've heard complaints about reliability.
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 2/3/2017 3:24:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch with 12 SFP's
> 
> >UBNT has a 12 port SFP switch for $200 and a 12 port SFP+ switch for 
> >$600.
> >
> >
> >Jared
> >
> >
> >
> >On Friday, February 03, 2017 Adam Moffett wrote:
> >
> >How come all of the Mikrotik fiber switches have 10 SFP's? I'd like a 
> >12S-1S+ model.
> >
> >There are 12 fibers in a buffer tube, So I'd put 12 BiDi's in my 12S 
> >switch and label it as the "Blue Buffer Tube Switch".
> >
> >Or maybe that's the most anal product design requirement ever.
> >
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Switch with 12 SFP's

[fiberrun]

UBNT has a 12 port SFP switch for $200 and a 12 port SFP+ switch for $600. 


Jared
 
 

On Friday, February 03, 2017 Adam Moffett wrote:

How come all of the Mikrotik fiber switches have 10 SFP's? I'd like a 12S-1S+ 
model.
 
There are 12 fibers in a buffer tube, So I'd put 12 BiDi's in my 12S switch and 
label it as the "Blue Buffer Tube Switch".
 
Or maybe that's the most anal product design requirement ever.
 

Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these

[fiberrun]

On Wednesday, February 01, 2017 Ken Hohhof wrote:
> How sure are you that 20 years from now, that investment will still look 
> “future proof”?  
  Looking down at the fiber I put down the better part of twenty years ago and 
still use, I say, yeah, it's still good for another twenty years and about as 
future proof as anything gets. 

> Or will it look like 8-track tapes and CB radio and non-flying cars and meat 
> made from animals?
  Commercial products will give me 10 Tbps per fiber and the C band is 
theoretically good for at least 100 Tbps, so I think we've got scalability 
pretty well down and we aren't going to run out of bits any time soon. 

  Assuming there was something better out there, we'd know about it by now. 
Commercial products don't just appear from the thin ether. They take years of 
R to commercialize. At the very least we should have scientific papers 
detailing revolutionary breakthroughs in science that will lead to something 
replacing fiber in twenty years. 
 
> I remember when we were supposed to wire every house for ISDN, because in the 
> future, everyone would “need” two 64 kbps bearer channels and a 16 kbps data 
> channel and “integrated services”.  
  I think picking on ISDN is a bit myopic. ISDN turned into g.fast which will 
do a respectable gigabit over short distances. 

 
Jared

Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these

[fiberrun]

Did UTOPIA sell dark fiber? I thought they only did bitstream access. 

Jared

> Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> UTOPIA didn't exactly set the world on fire down here.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Travis Johnson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:58 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these
> 
> The dark fiber loop in my city (Idaho Falls, Idaho) works extremely well
> for the entire city. There are many providers, even private companies,
> that lease a dark fiber pair and pay the city a monthly rate.
> 
> Travis
> 
> 
> On 2/1/2017 3:40 PM, fiber...@mail.com wrote:
> > Chuck McCown wrote:
> >> Who owns the dark fiber network?
> >> Government - we all know how good they are at doing things like this.
> >Others manage. See for example Stokab owned by the city of Stockholm in 
> > Sweden.
> >
> >> Private - so we create good old Ma Bell all over again?
> >First, it does not have to be a single private company.
> >
> >Second, the owner being a private company need not be a problem. 
> > Non-discriminatory access to everybody, at set rates with prohibitions 
> > against cross-ownership and the offering of retail services. See examples 
> > from other industries with wholesale infrastructure providers and 
> > structural separation in the telecom industry.
> >
> >Third, there's a pretty big difference between recreating Ma Bell and 
> > creating a (regional) dark fiber company that does nothing else than rent 
> > dark fiber.
> >
> >> Existing carriers forced to open their networks?  OK if you like the 
> >> Venezuela solution to things.
> >My proposal does not require existing carriers to open up their 
> > networks.
> >
> >> New networks built by low bidder defense contractor?  Great, replication 
> >> and tax bite too.
> >Where did this come from? I said nothing about defense contractors or 
> > tax financing.
> >
> >
> > Jared
> >
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these

[fiberrun]

No, I wasn't referring to the cell companies. They don't do fixed broadband. 

Jared

From: "Chuck McCown wrote:

You mean like T Mobile, AT, Verizon & Sprint...

 

-Original Message-

From: fiber...@mail.com
 
It is inefficient to build competing infrastructures and temporary solutions.
 
Jared
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these

[fiberrun]

Chuck McCown wrote:
> Who owns the dark fiber network?
> Government - we all know how good they are at doing things like this.
  Others manage. See for example Stokab owned by the city of Stockholm in 
Sweden. 

> Private - so we create good old Ma Bell all over again?
  First, it does not have to be a single private company. 

  Second, the owner being a private company need not be a problem. 
Non-discriminatory access to everybody, at set rates with prohibitions against 
cross-ownership and the offering of retail services. See examples from other 
industries with wholesale infrastructure providers and structural separation in 
the telecom industry. 

  Third, there's a pretty big difference between recreating Ma Bell and 
creating a (regional) dark fiber company that does nothing else than rent dark 
fiber. 

> Existing carriers forced to open their networks?  OK if you like the 
> Venezuela solution to things. 
  My proposal does not require existing carriers to open up their networks. 

> New networks built by low bidder defense contractor?  Great, replication and 
> tax bite too. 
  Where did this come from? I said nothing about defense contractors or tax 
financing. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these

[fiberrun]

Mark,

I believe you have presented a false dilemma. Those are not the only options. 

The best option would be to have an open access dark fiber network with cost 
plus pricing, averaged over the whole network. 

With this model it doesn't matter much who does the building, who does the 
financing or for that matter even who does the owning. 

This would also keep true competition alive and flourishing on the level that 
matters, the offering of Internet and other services. 

It is inefficient to build competing infrastructures and temporary solutions. 

Now, I don't expect the rational thing to be done, but, hey, a man can dream. 

Jared




On Wednesday, February 01, 2017 Mark Radabaugh wrote:

Adam,
 
 
So 2 questions for you (or anyone)…
 
Do you think the government should fund private companies to build fiber 
everywhere because 10Mb won’t be sufficient for the “need”, not the “want”.   
Do we as a country spend a lot of public money to effectively create a monopoly 
fiber carrier in every region?   Or is it better to make sure everyone has 
access to 10Mb and allow the free market to compete for the “want”?   To me the 
former creates a monopoly with government money with all of it’s inefficiencies 
 and long term harm to the consumer.    The latter takes longer but has a 
better chance of staying competitive.
 
The ‘monopoly last mile provider’ model is probably not going to happen in the 
US.  While it could I don’t see any current political chance of that happening.
 
Given the major providers as well as the wanna-be’s like Google are giving up 
on FTTH builds in favor of fiber -> 5G builds now, why should the FCC still be 
pushing the FTTX only model?    
 
Given 5G is little more than hype at this point I have my doubts that the model 
will actually work, but that’s another story.
 
I’m asking these questions in the WISPA FCC chair capacity because I want to 
understand what our policy should be, keeping in mind that government funding 
schemes are rarely friendly to small companies and often result in significant 
harm.
 
As Amplex - I’m building fiber to towers, FTTH on the routes to the towers and 
in wooded areas I can’t otherwise serve, and creating micro pops along the way 
on the fiber routes.   Personally I think that is the winning answer for the 
future - but that’s just me.
 
Mark
  

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Adam Moffett 
 wrote: 

I agree with you on the need.  In my mind, nobody "needs" more than 1meg.  
10meg generally makes them happy and not have too fuss about how they're using 
it (for now).  They "want" 25-100 meg for all their entertainment.
 
Put another way:  I might only "need" 10 amps of electrical capacity as long as 
I'm careful about how I'm using it, but my 200 amp service makes me a happy and 
contented consumer for the foreseeable future.
 
Regardless of what anyone "needs", fiber is going to end up the standard 
delivery mechanism for data because it will meet the need of today and the need 
of next year and the next 50 years.  If you build anything else, then in the 
long run you'll have people still clamoring for improvement and it will end up 
being replaced.  
 
There's nothing wrong with meeting the immediate need with wireless, and you 
can absolutely make money doing it, but the long term and permanent answer is 
going to be fiber.  So if you want to stay relevant in the future you'll be 
looking at how to get into that game whether it's with private funding or 
government subsidy.
 
This is a WISP, we're a WISPA member, and I want WISP's to succeed.but 
facts is facts.
 
-Adam
 
 
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: 2/1/2017 2:11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these
 

Chuck,
 
Explain why we would have to bury fiber for that customer when the current 
standard for ‘served’ for Internet is 10Mbps which is easily done with 
wireless, and “Advanced Broadband” is 25/3Mb.    I still think there is a very 
valid argument that 10Mbps is more than sufficient for the services that the 
government should be guaranteeing (phone, telemedicine, education).  25/3 is 
more about entertainment than anything else and I don’t see where this is a 
taxpayer obligation.   I want Broadway shows in my little town too - but I 
don’t expect the government to fund them.
 
The major carriers are moving away from landlines as fast as they can and are 
really looking to replace all last mile with wireless if they can make it work 
(and they think they can).  I don’t think it will be long until getting 
traditional landline service in the city is no longer an option - why would we 
still be forcing this in rural areas?
 
The other issue is the cash cow that funded USF for years (intrastate phone 
revenue) is rapidly diminishing and will finish it's spiral of death soon 
unless the contribution base is 

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber Cost

[fiberrun]

Just don't forget that there will be costs not related to construction both 
before and after. 

Some of them are onetime costs, not related to mileage like planning, permits 
and the like. This is one reason costs are all over the map, because it depends 
on how many miles you can spread fixed prebuild costs. 

Others are ongoing costs which will keep eating at you, even after you finish 
construction. Various reporting requirements and paperwork, locates, repairs, 
maintenance, etc. Even when you have a brand new plant you have to budget for 
OPEX. 

Jared


> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:27 PM
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber Cost
>
> All over the place.   10k to 200k depending location. Rural direct plowed 
> in good soil with no duct and nothing in the way?   12k is about as low as I 
> have seen quoted.Road crossings, boring, rock, urban, rail crossings, 
> pipeline crossings will all add to that number.   
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> > On Nov 17, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:
> > 
> > I know we have discussed this before but I wanted a current cost for 
> > backhaul fiber per mile in the ground.
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?

[fiberrun]

Content providers like Netflix, Facebook, etc. don't really have any reason to 
go IPv6 only. Best they can do is start offering IPv6 access also, on top of 
IPv4. 

Many content providers don't care. The pain is felt purely on the ISP side. The 
best we can hope for is that enough ISPs deploy IPv6 (only), so that most 
content providers can't continue to totally ignore IPv6 in the long term. 

Not that IPv6 support is always sunshine and roses, as can be seen by Netflix 
blocking IPv6 tunnels. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 11:05 PM
From: "Paul Stewart" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?

I’m thinking 5 years or less… what it’ll take to start pushing this heavily is 
for someone like Netflix, Facebook etc to go IPv6 only…. great theory that 
probably won’t happen unfortunately ….
 

On Nov 13, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Chuck McCown 
 wrote: 

That day will come, but I  think it is 5 years in the future or more. 

 

From: Cassidy B. Larson
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:16 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?
 
Wonder if I could offer an “IPv6-Only” type of account at a discounted rate.
They'd get their Netflix, their Facebook and everything else that’s v6 
reachable. 
If they can’t get to a v4 only site/service, then they can be the vocal ones 
complaining to the site owners to get their act in gear.
 
 

On Nov 12, 2016, at 10:47 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
 

Except that you literally cannot ‘move to IPv6’ and have happy clients yet.
 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?
 

Wow, didn't know that /24's were going for that high. I would move to IPv6 as 
fast as I can!

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
That's actually a pretty good price.

 

On Nov 11, 2016 6:42 PM, "Dev"  wrote:
Are there any other alternatives than the 
ipv4auctions.com[http://ipv4auctions.com/] style websites, which seem like 
highway robbery at $3584 current bid for a /24?
 

Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?

[fiberrun]

What do you think the 4 stands for in NAT64? You cannot access IPv4 resources 
with IPv4 addresses, even if you use IPv6 everywhere. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM
From: "Josh Reynolds" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?
NAT64
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64

 
On Nov 13, 2016 9:54 AM, "Chuck McCown" 
 wrote:

Nope, not if you are v6 and only v6.  No way to get to bazillions of servers 
that are on v4 still and will be for many moons.
You will have to have V4 involved somewhere forever. 

 

From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?
 
Of course you can. There's many ways to go about it.

 
On Nov 12, 2016 11:47 PM, "Sterling Jacobson"  wrote:

Except that you literally cannot ‘move to IPv6’ and have happy clients yet.
 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 auction alternatives?
 

Wow, didn't know that /24's were going for that high. I would move to IPv6 as 
fast as I can!

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
That's actually a pretty good price.

 

On Nov 11, 2016 6:42 PM, "Dev"  wrote:
Are there any other alternatives than the 
ipv4auctions.com[http://ipv4auctions.com] style websites, which seem like 
highway robbery at $3584 current bid for a /24?
 

Re: [AFMUG] best rental options for internet for a cruise

[fiberrun]

Iridium Go has an unlimited $120 flat rate plan if you are ok with ancient 
dial-up speeds and using only email, texts and ssh. 

Here's a write up from a guy on a cruise ship using it: 
http://www.revk.uk/2014/09/still-at-sea.html

$200 isn't bad for 450 MB of data, as most other mobile pay-as-you-go plans 
(such as BGAN) will be far more. In addition there will be equipment rental 
fees unless you buy the terminal. The terminals are quite expensive, $800 or 
so, but I guess you can buy used or sell it once you are done. Still probably 
more expensive than $200 in the end. 


Jared
 
 

Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 at 8:08 AM
From: "Rory Conaway" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] best rental options for internet for a cruise

Any chance someone has a mobile satellite data plan that is better than the 
$200 for 460MB of data?  Cruise time, just having a hard time paying $200 for 
480 minutes.  Immarsat is insane but it looks like the only option so far 
outside the boat.
 
Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542[tel:602-426-0542]
r...@triadwireless.net[mailto:r...@triadwireless.net]
www.triadwireless.net[http://www.triadwireless.net/]
 
“One thing you learned as a Cubs fan, when you bought a ticket, you could 
always bank on seeing the bottom of the ninth.” – Joe Garagiola
 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, 
> which they do,
  That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this up 
with some sources?
>>>Do you mind enlightening us with all the tales of success and glory?
>> Excellent deflection, again! That mean it's just something you made up then?
>I guess you ask for facts and toy are not deflecting? Nice.
 I find it amusing that you cannot answer a simple request to substantiate your 
claim.
 No matter. I'll indulge you, let's see if you can muster a reply this time. 

 Here an example of a successful municipal fiber network: Chattanooga's EPB 
Fiber. 

 Your turn. 


> Maybe you have difficulty understanding basic economics. 
  Nah, the problem is more that the rest of the world doesn't subscribe to your 
alternative theories on economics.
  A loan default is not a bailout. 
  A bailout is an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or 
economy to save it from collapse. 
  If you default on a loan the lender takes your collateral and goes after you 
for the rest, you do *not* get more money and keep on trucking. 
  A bailout is where you socialize a loss. When a loan defaults it's a credit 
risk that actulizes. 

  Let me repeat that: a loan default is not a bailout. Those are two totally 
different things. 

>>  Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then there's 
>>the people that just can't move.
> Do you have facts to back that up?
  Are you kidding me? You need me to convince you that it costs money to rent a 
u-haul truck?

  As a major you should know without asking anybody that any civil 
infrastructure only has a certain carrying capacity and if that is exceeded, 
you have to build more. With real money. 

> And if you just can't move and you can't get Internet you obviously don't 
> need it.
  Are you really, really unable to think of even one case where a person cannot 
move, cannot get decent internet access, cannot find a job locally, but could 
hold down a remote job over the Internet?

>>  Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even if 
>>you just count dollars and cents.
> Can you quote Any factual basis for your opinion?
  This might come as a surprise to you, but unemployment actually costs money. 

> You are implying that the lack of Internet prevents unemployment in areas 
> that previously had none of insufficient speed?
  That double negative probably didn't work out as you intended. But to answer 
the question you most likely had, yes, lack of Internet access most definitely 
prevents being employed at a remote job. 

 
>>  According to the FCC, 1.4 million have no broadband available, not even 
>>satellite. 16 million people have 
>> satellite with 4M/1M or less available. There are not insignificant numbers.
> I think those are very insignificant.
  They might seem insignificant to you, as you are not affected. I'm pretty 
sure it does not seem insignificant to the actual persons themselves. Would you 
voluntarily give up your internet access?

  More than a million people is also not insignificant to society. 

> You seem to be assuming that those people both want and need more.
  Some do, some don't. What's the harm in working to give it to those that want 
it, need it and will pay for it?
 
> And it is doubtful they will suddenly make $250k a year just because their 
> access improves.
  They don't need to and you are being silly for even setting the bar that 
high. 
  Why wouldn't a lesser amount be enough? What if they didn't make a cent more, 
but they could save money?

 
> World peace. 
  :)

  Peace out, man. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, 
>>> which they do,
>>  That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this up 
>>with some sources?
>Do you mind enlightening us with all the tales of success and glory?
 Excellent deflection, again! That mean it's just something you made up then?

  
>>  Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you say 
>>are paying for all the failures?
> RUS is federal and has taken the hit for a number of projects, not sure on 
> Fiber and I wasn't just referring
> to fiber. Maybe you are but I wasn't being that narrow. 
  I'm sure RUS has taken some hits on their projects. 

  However, that's not the point. RUS loans are applied for in advance of 
starting a project, not after the fact. 
  You wrote that there is a federal bailout program that "they ask for ... when 
they get in over their head."
  What federal grants or assistance are you referring to, since it can't be RUS?

>>> Let the free market system take care of everything else.  
>> How about them that the free market does not serve?
> Who cares? Really...who cares.
  That's not very neighborly of you.

  You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it totally ignores second 
order effects. 
  Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then there's 
the people that just can't move. 

  Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even if you 
just count dollars and cents. A lot of things require or are made possible by 
broadband. I'd rather have my tax dollars fund RUS loans or the like than use 
them for unemployment benefits. 

  So, would you rather spend your hard earned tax dollars of building new 
infrastructure so that the people that had to move can have needed services or 
would you permit broadbandless people to pay for their own damn internet, even 
if they have to bond for it locally?

  According to the FCC, 1.4 million have no broadband available, not even 
satellite. 16 million people have satellite with 4M/1M or less available. There 
are not insignificant numbers.  


> And to be really honest, it seems like a large part of the customer base in 
> the areas I evaluated were wholly
> disinterested in fiber.
  I'm fine with excluding areas where there is no demand. I'm not fine with 
excluding areas where there is both demand and willingness to pay, but no 
private actor. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

No doubt, but I believe we were discussing public fiber networks. 

Jared

> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 at 6:26 PM
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
>
> No doubt all the muni-wifi projects failed.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:23 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
> 
> Lewis Bergman wrote:
> > I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, 
> > which they do,
>   That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this up 
> with some sources?
> 
>   Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you say 
> are paying for all the failures?
> 
> > Let the free market system take care of everything else.
>   How about them that the free market does not serve?
> 
>   You make a coherent argument about municipalities focusing on core 
> services, but it does not address them that are left out in the cold.
> 
> Jared 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, which 
> they do, 
  That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this up 
with some sources?

  Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you say are 
paying for all the failures?

> Let the free market system take care of everything else.  
  How about them that the free market does not serve?

  You make a coherent argument about municipalities focusing on core services, 
but it does not address them that are left out in the cold. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck writes:
> You have wireless internet why do you need fiber?  Everybody can get 
> hughesnet.
  Have you actually used satellite internet?
  The punishment for advocating that position is to have to use only satellite 
internet u tik you cry uncle. :)

> The county should run water and gas first.
  Fine by me, if that's what people want. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

> Electricity costs 4 x NG.
  Distribution costs money. New infrastructure costs money. The price of 
commodities fluctuates. 
  Is it still four times cheaper when you factor in all that?
  Don't ask me, I'm not a gas guy.   

> What does more of the people, gas or fiber?
  Any reason you can't have both?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> At the root is that you somehow believe government involvement is always good.
  Now don't you go putting words in my mouth!
  I never said such a thing. 

  I do not think government involvement is always good. Neither do I believe 
that government involvement is always bad. 

  By your own words, you fall into the latter camp. I consider both positions 
to be extreme, and not a considered approach. Always having a knee jerk 
reaction rarely leads to an optimal result. 

> History doesn't back you up, especially where broadband is concerned.
  Oh, goodie! A history lesson! Please tell me more. Out of the 450 community 
networks in the US, how many did not work out and why?

> Government, most any government, does a pretty poor job if what it should be 
> doing much less tasks it 
> has no business doing.
  I'm sure government does a lot of things wrong and the wrong things. 
  Use your vote to change that. You'll have a chance to do so agsin next week. 

> You sound like someone who makes a living directly benefiting from tax 
> dollars. 
> Or even worse, done quasi governmental agency with the tax or secured money 
> benefits but no accountability.
  I'm so sorry to disappoint you.
  Why do you have something against people who get paid with tax dollars?
  Does this animosity extend to police, firefighters and enlisted personnel? 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck wrote:
> Why should the county not choose to build out natural gas to everyone?  That 
> would save them all lots of money, that would be a real benefit.  Why fiber 
> not gas?
  Because gas can easily be substituted for an other form of energy, like 
electricity? And everybody's already got electricity. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck writes:
> Unless you chose the federal cost of money rate, it has been about 1% for 13 
> years and counting.
  My bad. I've never taken RUS money so I wouldn't know. 

  Can you point me in the right direction?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck wrote:
> Why does it have to be open?  
  It does not have to be, but if one party offers dark fiber rental and the 
other does not, then they are not competing directly on all levels. Open access 
also opens up the market to a different level of competition, which may or may 
not be a goal. 

> If I string up a bunch of fiber and connect a 
> bunch of homes and businesses, how fair is it for the county to use my 
> property tax revenue to do the same and put the hurt on me?
  Fair to who?
  Fair to those that would have been left without service, because you could 
not or would not expand to all areas?
  Fair to those who would not be able to get the same service as their 
neighbors, if the county had left your service area out of their footprint?

  Paying property tax or running a business does not exempt you from 
competition, not even from the county. There are very few things you are 
entitled to as a business and fairness is not one of them. 

  Strictly legally speaking, even if the county overbuilds you, it hasn't left 
you worse off. You still have your network, they just have theirs. Your profit 
margins might not be the same, but there is no felony interference with a 
business model on the books. 

  That being said, existing last mile fiber networks are rarely, if ever, 
overbuilt by the county. If they are, it's usually due to one of two things:
  - the existing network does not cover the whole county
  - the existing network is not fulfilling community needs 

  There are of course multiple ways in which an overbuild can be avoided. The 
county can buy the existing network, it can be further built out with county 
financing, the county can buy wholesale access to the network, etc. 

  Sometimes an agreement just cannot be reached. More than one public network 
has been built because the incumbent did not want to open up the network, offer 
(better) services or build out the existing network, even on the county's dime. 


> >We don't pay buggy-and-whip tax on our cars either.
> Actually  you do, federal excise tax on tires...
  Ok, so the federal excise tax on tires was instigated originally to pay for 
World War I. It's been repealed and reinstated a bunch of times after that to 
pay for a variety of things. Wars, interstates, more wars. Nowadays it's a way 
to collect for higherwear-and-tear on highways by heavy vehicles. 

  How is this a buggy-and-whip tax?

Jared 
 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> Chuck mentioned 1% rates for RUS. Definitely below market.
 
 Here are the current RUS interest rates: 
 
http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/services/rural-utilities-loan-interest-rates#BaseRates

 Looks like a 30 year bond rate is 2.6-4.425%. 

> Are you saying that Comcast got tax money to build a building?
  Yes. 


> I'd you ate asking about their fibancials in this specific case of course 
> not, but you knew that.
  You have no knowledge about their financials, yet you have no problem opining 
on their profitability?

> I believe it is reasonable if their margin was acceptable they would have 
> continued. 
  That's assuming a lot. And you know what they say about assuming. 

> I haven't heard you spilled any facts relating to your claims that am this 
> wonderfulness coat nothing but I
> didn't see the 50 yeasts of proof.
  Translation please?


>>> But Utopia lives on and AT is gone. So even though anecdotal it proves my 
>>> point.
>>  And what point would that be?
> That even a small tax funded entity can take huge losses and survive when no 
> other entity without such lack 
> of accountability to reasonableness would. It is likely that most wouldn't 
> even want to continue. But nice
> move. No counterpoint? Just make some blank stare arguement worth two words. 
> Really getting your point 
> across.
  Um, what?
  I asked you a question for clarification, how is that supposed to be a 
counterpoint?
 
  As to small tax funded entities, let's assume we are talking municipalities 
here. Like any privat entity, a municipality can declare bankruptcy. 

  Both public and private entities can bond, make bad investments and cover 
their losses, as long as they have the assets and cash flows to do so. 

  What's so special about that?

  A big difference is that before floating a municipal bond, the local 
inhabitants have had their say and most probably also have voted on the issue. 
In fact the whole thing would never have even come up, if there wasn't strong 
local demand for it. 

  So, the people have voted and a bond has been floated. A network is built. 
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. If it does not work out, the 
local taxpayers end up paying for the investment with their tax dollars. So 
what? It's totally on them, they knew what they wanted, they knew what they 
were getting into and they knew the risks. 

  This is not so different from a private company writing down a bad 
investment. The main difference is, you, as a shareholder, rarely have had any 
direct say in whether the investment should have been done at all in the first 
place. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman Wrote:
> First, a subsidized rate below market is still cost.
  Who said anything about below market rates? Municipal bond rates are set by 
the market. 

> I have seen the size of Comcast. And concatenation uses its own money not 
> mine. 
  I beg to differ. It's not like Comcast hasn't been at the public purse. I 
recall them getting $40M for a skyscraper not too long ago. 

> AT evidently couldn't make money even with utopia paying for most of it.
  I am not privy to AT's financials with regards to that. Are you? 

> But Utopia lives on and AT is gone. So even though anecdotal it proves my 
> point.
  And what point would that be?

> In smaller towns you won't find AT nor Comcast fighting to get in there. 
  In Chattanooga Comcast is. Not going too well for them from what I've heard. 
EPB has more subs than Comcast now. 



Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Depends on how confident you are in your market projections.
  True. 

  However, if we were to spend a trillion dollars on wiring the nation, I think 
we could spare a few dollars to hire some guys with some applicable skills that 
could get it right, on average. 

  Internet usage is at 87%, so I'm fairly confident there is some long term 
demand out there. 

> You may assume if you build fiber and price it low enough, you will get 100% 
> take rate. 
  Yeah, I'm not a great fan of build it and they will come. 
  But it's not very hard to find out who actually wants it and will pay for it. 
  Usually the hard part is coming up with the financing. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

I'm not disagreeing with you in general, not even much in detail. However, 
there are some instances of BFE where fiber really isn't the answer. Sometimes 
it's just better for everyone to put them on satellite or pay them to relocate 
:)

Jared

> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:51 AM
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
>
> If big money is being spent, spend it on fiber.  He who brings fiber to the 
> home wins the whole game.  Been saying that for years.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 3:48 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
> 
> Bill Prince wrote:
> > We are now debating this same thing with regard to internet service, and
> > further whether it should or should not be provided over fiber.
> >
> > I sit firmly on the fence on that last one.
>   I'm not. I'm firmly in the NO camp.
> 
>   Fiber is just a tool. There is nothing magical about it. You should use 
> the best tool at your disposal.
> 
>   Fiber should be used IF:
>   - it has the lowest cost of ownership, over the lifetime of the asset AND 
> the expected service time
> 
>   If some other technology can provide the needed service(s) at the required 
> service levels cheaper, then use that instead.
> 
>   What is stupid, is building temporary solutions and upgrading them 
> piecemeal at a greater cost, when you could start with the best possible 
> solution, gain the benefits immediately and pay that off as soon as 
> possible.
> 
> Jared 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Rory Conaway wrote:
> Long term, the result of the government proving any kind of service and 
> destroying the free-enterprise or a
> competitive market
  Hold up! Before we take the above as a given, we'll have to establish a few 
facts. 

  - will government proving *any* kind of service destroy a market? Will 
providing Right-of-way do so? Will providing poles or ducts do so? How about 
dark fiber?
  - is the telecom market a free-enterprise or a competitive market?

 My 8-ball says no. 

 So, if you want to prophesize doom and gloom, you'll have to be a bit more 
specific which government service provisioning will bring forth the apocalypse. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Bill Prince wrote:
> We are now debating this same thing with regard to internet service, and 
> further whether it should or should not be provided over fiber.
> 
> I sit firmly on the fence on that last one.
  I'm not. I'm firmly in the NO camp. 

  Fiber is just a tool. There is nothing magical about it. You should use the 
best tool at your disposal. 

  Fiber should be used IF:
  - it has the lowest cost of ownership, over the lifetime of the asset AND the 
expected service time

  If some other technology can provide the needed service(s) at the required 
service levels cheaper, then use that instead. 

  What is stupid, is building temporary solutions and upgrading them piecemeal 
at a greater cost, when you could start with the best possible solution, gain 
the benefits immediately and pay that off as soon as possible. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> Government is rarely small at the level where it competes with an enterprise, 
> be it local or otherwise. 
  You are kidding me, right?

  Have you seen the size of Comcast?

> My apologies. Railing  against government as a solution instead of the pariah 
> it normally turns out it to be.
> Maybe not to those getting the great free or reduced stuff but definitely to 
> those paying for it. 
  I'd say there are the odd successes too. Some even mentioned in this thread. 
Clear societal benefits no less, without any cost to the government. 

 

> Because I have run the numbers myself and performed the market research. The 
> average person in my community
> is unwilling to pay enough to recoup the investment in an acceptable 
> time-frame. That being the case, why is 
> it someone else's responsibility to pay for what our community is unwilling 
> to pay?
  It's not. 

  I'm not advocating for freebies. All I'm saying is that if a community is 
willing to pay for it, it should be allowed to have fiber. 
 
  That being said, I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars on projects where 
there is no direct financial return from the local population, but from which 
society as a whole benefits from. Whether fiber networks fall into this 
category is debatable. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon and USF

[fiberrun]

Chuck wrote:
>> In all fairness, we are talking about fairly small projects done by local 
>> governments. It's not like there
>> is a Big Bad Fiber Network being built by the Feds.
> 
> Not yet.

You know something I don't know? :)

I'm having a hard time believing BBFN would ever get off the ground, 
politically speaking. 
 
 
>>  A great hospital might be stretching it, but why should you not have fiber?
> 
> Because you chose to live in BFE.  That is what those that oppose universal 
> service would say.  Those that 
> oppose USF etc.  You choose to live in BFE, no hospital, no fiber.
  A corollary to this is that the same people will protest loudly and try to 
stop you if you say: "Fine, I'll do it myself with my own money. I'll get my 
neighbors together and get the county to loan us the money to build it. Then 
we'll pay back the loan, every cent of it!"

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Ken Hohhof wrote:
> One issue is cherry picking, if a fiber deployment will only serve the 
> easiest or most lucrative customers, 
> that tells existing providers they should switch to differential pricing 
> where the less desirable customers 
> have to pay more.  Or just shut down when the fiber project comes to 
> fruition, and those people have nothing.
  A private fiber deployment will cherry pick, unless forced to do otherwise. A 
public fiber deployment will not (usually). 

  However, if we are talking about what happens to the people outside the fiber 
network coverage area, that is of course a valid concern. Political boundaries 
are a fact of life, and often being on the wrong side of an imaginary border 
will leave you with no service. 

  I really don't have a catch-all solution. Sometimes there is fallout, even if 
some people are better off after a fiber network has been built. 

  Sometimes it goes the other way. Rural areas get a shiny new fiber network, 
but more urban areas are left without, because there are existing providers 
there and funding conditions prohibit entering those areas. 
 
> It's also the feeling I get when people take a fantastic promo price from a 
> big competitor, saying they will 
> come to me when the promo ends.  Why should you expect to do that?  The other 
> customers are paying my costs 
> during that time, why should you get to waltz in at a later date and enjoy 
> the benefits?
  I don't know about you, but I'll take any customer's money if they'll meet my 
asking price :)
  Not that I'm going to stick around waiting for them if it becomes 
unprofitable to do so. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> I understand the attractiveness of the big government to solve a problem.
  In all fairness, we are talking about fairly small projects done by local 
governments. It's not like there is a Big Bad Fiber Network being built by the 
Feds. 


> It just always that is a fairly poor short term solution and an even worse 
> long term one that always serves 
> to stifle innovationand extend the life of entities that should already be 
> out of business.
  Sorry, lost me there. What are we taking about?


> I live in a rural area but don't think I deserve a great hospital 5 minutes 
> from my house or fiber or a great
> many conveniences
  You can have what you pay for. 
  A great hospital might be stretching it, but why should you not have fiber?


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

> I am not wholly against muni fiber systems in concept.  But harm to existing 
> service providers must be mitigated.
  A publicly funded fiber network is years in the making. It should not come as 
a surprise to any local business.  WISPs are businesses and should adapt to the 
prevailing business environment.  By the time the fiber network rolls out, you 
should have a fully paid of network yourself and be prepared to transition 
customers to the fiber network, if it makes sense. 

If you, as a WISP, are behind the curve by the time they light up the fiber 
network, then that is nobody's problem but yours. 

Also, what harm is there? Somebody drops a multimillion fiber network in your 
lap and says "have at it". All you have to do in return is pay the monthly 
rental fee for any customers you have on the network. How is that nothing but 
good fortune?


> They must be allowed to connect for 
> free and be given some kind of pioneers preference such as no MRC marginal 
> costs for the first year or something like that.
  I'm not saying the fiber network owner shouldn't do their best to attract 
ISPs, but why should existing players get any preference compared to any other 
new entrant?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

> I'd just like to see how the whole cost structure comes out
  $5 per MST port (12k MSTs total) 
  $100 per NAP port (2.6k NAPs total)
  $3500 per bckbone fiber strand

  Prices are 40% higher for small (<40k) or low density (<80 subs per mile) 
deployments. 

  Google pays $208k per month. 

  It's a bit of a weird setup. You have to build your own drops, you can only 
rent backbone/distribution fibers. 


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

> Great if I am a provider of services, and then I can come into your area, 
> compete with you wireless system, using guvmnt provided fiber...
  What's stopping the WISP from using the same government fiber to provide 
service?
  They've already got the advantage as they are established and have the 
customers. 


> But yes, they compete with private facility owners.
  I'm sorry, could you be more specific? I don't know of a single market with 
an privately owned open access last mile dark fiber network. 

> Unfairly so. 
  Is it unfair that they charge too little, too much or something else entirely?

> They must be able to pull their own weight or it is a double crime.
  Sorry, lost me there. Do you mean the public network must be profitable or do 
you mean something else?


> I remember back in the 1960s, my dad getting "soil bank" payments for not 
> farming some of his fields.  I think that muni and govt fiber systems should 
> do the same thing for the WISPS they are  hurting...
  Why?

  We don't pay buggy-and-whip tax on our cars either. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck,

Do you feel government built/owned last mile open acces dark fiber networks are 
a detriment to the market and/or compete with private companies?

Jared

> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 11:37 PM
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
>
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> > by government.  Arguably water and sewer.  I have lived in cities with two
> > power companies.  But all the rest should be done by commercial providers.
>   Why do you draw the line at the utilities and the infrastructure you 
> listed? What makes them so special?
> 
> Duplication of public utilities is typically not in the public's interest. 
> Duplicate sewer systems would not give a better value to anyone.  Ditto 
> water.  Power lines use up lots of public utility easements and are best 
> left to one company serving for that reason.  There is only so much room for 
> streets.
> 
> The same philosophy used to apply to airlines, truck lines, railroads, still 
> applies to taxi companies in some areas but most of those have been 
> deregulated and open to competition.
> 
> Same thing happened to telecom.  It was deregulated to encourage competition 
> and choice of providers.  Allowing government entities to re-enter that 
> market is a reversal of policy as public utilities are considered quazi 
> public entities.  Do they want monopolies or do they want competition...  If 
> they want a free market, they should stay out of it.
> 
> 
> > More importantly government should never compete with businesses.
> > They have many unfair advantages.
>   What unfair advantages do you feel they have?
> 
> They do not pay taxes.  Property, personal property, income, corporate, 
> excise etc etc.
> (Ask Bountiful city how much property tax they pay on the fiber system. )
> They do not pay ROW access fees or impact fees.
> They have the power to tax to finance competition.
> They have the power to limit access to competitors.
> They have the power to grant permits without delay and without burden.
> They have the ability to market to all residents without additional burden.
> They have the color of government approval on their activities.
> They can force all to participate in funding a business that by its very 
> nature can hurt other businesses and even force them out of business.
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

How much of the first bond is left to pay?

Jared
 

Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:42 AM
From: "Roger Timmerman" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

As far as the first bond, the cities are covering it for now.  We could be 
contributing some of our net revenue to decrease the burden, but because the 
system is only completely built in all of the cities, we are investing that 
money towards the completion of the project.  When the project is completed, 
then there will likely be some relief of that bond form our revenues.
 
Roger
 
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:08 PM,  
wrote:Thank you Roger for that detailed write up.

What happened to the first phase bond?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:37 PM
From: "Roger Timmerman" 
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

Most of what Chuck says is true about the first phase of UTOPIA.  It was a 
disaster.  Some of it was their fault, some of it wasn't.
 
For example, AT was actually the first service provider on UTOPIA and had an 
initial exclusivity period.  One day the higher-ups at AT decided to abandon 
that part of the business without telling anyone.  AT's services on UTOPIA 
went dark and no one was there to answer the phones.  Took a while to recover 
from that one.  
 
The next provider to go belly-up was Mstar which was a whole other financial 
disaster for UTOPIA.  
 
RUS loans that were approved and then later withdrawn caused UTOPIA to invest 
heavily in rural areas rather than build in more strategic areas.  This was the 
topic of a lawsuit between UTOPIA and RUS for which there was a recent $11M 
settlement after several years of fighting.
 
A lawsuit from Qwest tied up construction for a while and cost a fortune to 
fight but eventually resulted in a settlement, was still a huge blow to the 
project.
 
Bad management, bad state legislators, bad contractors, you name it.  UTOPIA 
has had tough times.
 
However, there was a restructuring about 8 years ago when I first came on 
board.  The management company was given the boot and we parted ways with bad 
contractors and partners. We in-housed our operations, NOC, technicians, 
network engineering, etc and recruited better service provider partners.  Costs 
dramatically decreased, reliability increased, and the project gained some 
stability even though it was still costing a lot of money keep the lights on.  
We used what money we had after a debt refinance of the original bond to finish 
Tremonton City, and we partnered with Brigham City to build their city with 
them doing their own bond.  The revenues covered all of Brigham City's new debt 
payments and the new revenue decreased the bleeding for UTOPIA.
 
We knew that if we could replicate the success of Tremonton and Brigham City we 
would not only build out more network, but also would further alleviate the 
bleeding and maybe even break even.  9 of the original 11 UTOPIA cities agreed 
to take down new debt to do this. One dropped out when it came time to bond so 
only 8 proceeded with the bond.  Because it had different city membership, we 
had to create a new agency that acts only as a financing arm for furthering the 
project, with the same purpose of UTOPIA, but without investing in the cities 
that didn't financially support the new growth.  UTOPIA and UIA (the 8 city 
project) have taken down three additional incremental bonds for building out 
the system.  Now we cover a much larger area and are covering all of costs and 
generating positive net revenues. All of the debt service is also being paid 
for by UTOPIA and UIA except for the first phase bond.  Rather than spend the 
net revenues on partially addressing the original bond, we are investing in 
finishing out the project.
 
We are currently building out at our fastest pace with a model that is 
financially sustainable and actually profitable.  Our service provider partners 
are stable, growing, competitive, and well liked.  If bonding weren't so 
politically unpopular, you would see us or other similar projects everywhere.  
However, bond is a four-letter word these days and it is still an uphill battle 
to do these types of projects despite how well they do.
 
Roger
 
 
 
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:46 AM, 

 wrote:It is all armchair quarterbacking at this point.

It went wrong at its inception.
A guy named Arthur Brady with Telecom Choices played the part of Harold Hill in 
the Music Man.
He got paid for the band instruments and blew out of town.

So, the cities were sold a bill of goods in my opinion.  But the largest city 
was smart enough not to put its foot in the trap. Salt Lake City.

Then they had issues with contractors and quality of work.
They overpaid.  They borrowed too much etc etc.
They 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck wrote:
> They honestly expected Qwest and Comcast to ride their network.
  What alternate reality do these people live in?


> I personally am philosophically opposed to governments providing goods or 
> services that private companies can do.  Obviously streets are better done 
> by government.  Arguably water and sewer.  I have lived in cities with two 
> power companies.  But all the rest should be done by commercial providers.
  Why do you draw the line at the utilities and the infrastructure you listed? 
What makes them so special?


> More importantly government should never compete with businesses.
> They have many unfair advantages.
  What unfair advantages do you feel they have?

  Government businesses have to pay off debt, make payments in lieu of taxes 
and absorb losses like everybody else. 

Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Thank you Roger for that detailed write up. 

What happened to the first phase bond?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:37 PM
From: "Roger Timmerman" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

Most of what Chuck says is true about the first phase of UTOPIA.  It was a 
disaster.  Some of it was their fault, some of it wasn't.
 
For example, AT was actually the first service provider on UTOPIA and had an 
initial exclusivity period.  One day the higher-ups at AT decided to abandon 
that part of the business without telling anyone.  AT's services on UTOPIA 
went dark and no one was there to answer the phones.  Took a while to recover 
from that one.  
 
The next provider to go belly-up was Mstar which was a whole other financial 
disaster for UTOPIA.  
 
RUS loans that were approved and then later withdrawn caused UTOPIA to invest 
heavily in rural areas rather than build in more strategic areas.  This was the 
topic of a lawsuit between UTOPIA and RUS for which there was a recent $11M 
settlement after several years of fighting.
 
A lawsuit from Qwest tied up construction for a while and cost a fortune to 
fight but eventually resulted in a settlement, was still a huge blow to the 
project.
 
Bad management, bad state legislators, bad contractors, you name it.  UTOPIA 
has had tough times.
 
However, there was a restructuring about 8 years ago when I first came on 
board.  The management company was given the boot and we parted ways with bad 
contractors and partners. We in-housed our operations, NOC, technicians, 
network engineering, etc and recruited better service provider partners.  Costs 
dramatically decreased, reliability increased, and the project gained some 
stability even though it was still costing a lot of money keep the lights on.  
We used what money we had after a debt refinance of the original bond to finish 
Tremonton City, and we partnered with Brigham City to build their city with 
them doing their own bond.  The revenues covered all of Brigham City's new debt 
payments and the new revenue decreased the bleeding for UTOPIA.
 
We knew that if we could replicate the success of Tremonton and Brigham City we 
would not only build out more network, but also would further alleviate the 
bleeding and maybe even break even.  9 of the original 11 UTOPIA cities agreed 
to take down new debt to do this. One dropped out when it came time to bond so 
only 8 proceeded with the bond.  Because it had different city membership, we 
had to create a new agency that acts only as a financing arm for furthering the 
project, with the same purpose of UTOPIA, but without investing in the cities 
that didn't financially support the new growth.  UTOPIA and UIA (the 8 city 
project) have taken down three additional incremental bonds for building out 
the system.  Now we cover a much larger area and are covering all of costs and 
generating positive net revenues. All of the debt service is also being paid 
for by UTOPIA and UIA except for the first phase bond.  Rather than spend the 
net revenues on partially addressing the original bond, we are investing in 
finishing out the project.
 
We are currently building out at our fastest pace with a model that is 
financially sustainable and actually profitable.  Our service provider partners 
are stable, growing, competitive, and well liked.  If bonding weren't so 
politically unpopular, you would see us or other similar projects everywhere.  
However, bond is a four-letter word these days and it is still an uphill battle 
to do these types of projects despite how well they do.
 
Roger
 
 
 
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:46 AM,  
wrote:It is all armchair quarterbacking at this point.

It went wrong at its inception.
A guy named Arthur Brady with Telecom Choices played the part of Harold Hill in 
the Music Man.
He got paid for the band instruments and blew out of town.

So, the cities were sold a bill of goods in my opinion.  But the largest city 
was smart enough not to put its foot in the trap. Salt Lake City.

Then they had issues with contractors and quality of work.
They overpaid.  They borrowed too much etc etc.
They honestly expected Qwest and Comcast to ride their network.

There was a point in time that Wireless Beehive was installing at a weekly rate 
greater than UTOPIA and almost had as many customers.  We were in the hole 
perhaps $2-4M and they were in the hole more than $100M.  I think it was more 
like $216M.  All backed by bonds that were tied to sales tax revenue.

Originally they needed 120,000 customers they said to be viable.  That was a 
1/3rd take rate.
I am guessing they don't even have 25K at this point but that is just a guess 
based on nothing.

So the debt service was more than they could ever cover it appeared at one 
time.  I fully expected bankruptcy.  Then they attempted to do a deal with an 
Australian company that would have forced personal debt on 

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Rob Genovesi wrote:
> I despise over regulation but it could create a large enough barrier
> to entry that only serious operators would enter the market and that
> might prevent race to the bottom, at least for a little while.
  How do you define a serious operator and who gets to set the rules?

  I'd much rather have low barriers to entry and any downside that it brings. 
Generally speaking we need more competition, not less. 

  A far larger long term threat than bottom of the barrel operators is market 
consolidation, due to the fact that the ISP business is very much a volume 
business where the winner can just outscale smaller players. 


> >> I'm sure spammers and DCMA violators will love it!
> >
> > How do you figure the above applies?
> 
> That seems pretty obvious, DCMA violators will just keep jumping to
> the next service provider any time their current provider is forced to
> turn them off.
  That assumes there is an infinite supply of ISPs to chose from, which there 
clearly isn't. In other words, this is not a viable long term strategy, and 
most people are smart enough to figure that out and don't go down that road. 
Much easier to just use a VPN service than jumping ship every time you get a 
DMCA complaint. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Chuck McCown wrote:
> Utopia tried that method in Brigham City and it didn't work so well (for a 
> variety of reasons).
  Did UTOPIA have any option? Municipalities in Utah are barred from providing 
retail services. 

  Where do you think they went wrong?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Paul at believewireless wrote:
> Seems like a race to the bottom on pricing. 

Competition will do that to you. What do you see as the preferred alternative?

> I'm sure spammers and DCMA violators will love it!
 
How do you figure the above applies?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

"Sterling Jacobson" writes:
> I like the idea of the bond, but I don’t like the idea of a split 
> responsibility/ISP where one entity owns 
> the fiber and others bill and provide service over it.
  This is how local loop unbundling works. 

  Would you rather the city both own and operate the fiber, instead of opening 
it up for competition?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

[fiberrun]

Can you tell us more about this split and financial engineering? Or perhaps 
point to other resources where I can learn some more?

You say the money is better spent on private operations. How do you envision 
this should work? A public private partnership or how should Utopia have doled 
out the money?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:32 AM
From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

I’m saying Utopia had to split into two companies to even show a profit and 
overall the model was a failure if you combine all operations.
 
The money is better spent on a private operation who owns and services the 
customer entirely.
 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Roger Timmerman
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
 

Not sure why anyone would say the UTOPIA/Brigham City project didn't work.  
~25% of the city pre-committed for services which was enough to back a bond to 
fund the whole city's fiber build.  Since then subscriber-ship has continued to 
increase, is now at about 33% across the entire city, and generates net 
positive cash flow.  It's a great model and I would expect we will see much 
more of it (albeit without the liens the city used alleviate their risk).  
Despite occasional complaints, a third party net promoter survey last March 
gave UTOPIA a 57 net promoter score, which is almost unbelievably high in the 
ISP industry.  I'm not sure what you're comparing us to, but that seems like 
very successful project to me.

 

Roger

 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson 
 wrote:

I like the idea of the bond, but I don’t like the idea of a split 
responsibility/ISP where one entity owns the fiber and others bill and provide 
service over it.
 
 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]] On Behalf 
Of can...@believewireless.net[mailto:can...@believewireless.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 10:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber
 

Seems like a race to the bottom on pricing. I'm sure spammers and DCMA 
violators will love it!

 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Chuck McCown 
 wrote:
Utopia tried that method in Brigham City and it didn't work so well (for a 
variety of reasons).

-Original Message- From: Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:35 AM

To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber

Hi,

This is a small "town" that is directly connected to my hometown of
Idaho Falls. The road I drive to work on, the west side of that street
is Idaho Falls, the east side is Ammon. We had a lot of wireless
customers in the Ammon area when I was a WISP. They have been working on
this fiber project for almost 10 years.

It's a very interesting way to do it. They have bundled the $3,000
installation into a low interest "bond" kind of thing that is attached
to the property... so that's about $15/month for 20 years. Then they
have a small transport/utility fee for the fiber itself of $16.50/month.

The most amazing part is the user can switch between providers from a
website, picking the speed and service that they want, and it changes
their service immediately. It will be interesting to see how this goes.
They are supposed to have their first residential customer live by the
end of this year.

They are saying 100Mbps x 100Mbps service would be about $60-$70 per
month total (with $0 installation cost).

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-if-switching-fiber-isps-was-as-easy-as-clicking-a-mouse/[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-if-switching-fiber-isps-was-as-easy-as-clicking-a-mouse/]

Travis
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber maximum throughout

[fiberrun]

> How many different modes can you put on a fiber???
  Singlemode fiber supports, as it's name indicates, one fundamental mode, 
which consists of two orthogonal polarization modes.
  Multimode fibers support more than 100 modes. 

  The problem is, we don't have the MIMO technology to deal with more than a 
few modes, so can't just use multimode fiber with all it's modes. 
  Most research concentrates of so called few-mode fibers with a total of six 
polarization and spatial modes. 

Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber maximum throughout

[fiberrun]

> Nobody yet knows the theoretical max as you can jack up the power
> until things start melting and get more bandwidth.  
  Not quite. You can't just jack up the power, unless you also manage to 
improve your SNR. The maximum theoretical bandwidth of singlemode fiber is 
dependent on SNR and whether the channel is linear or not. 

  Assuming a SNR of 30dB and a linear channel, the maximum bandwidth of 
singlemode fiber is about 100 Tbps. 
  
  This is for the usable parts of infrared light (amplifiable C and L bands in 
single mode fiber). This is about 10 Thz. According to Shannon's theorem the 
theoretical upper limit for symbol rate in a linear channel with 30db SNR is 10 
bits/s/Hz, independent of modulation format. Multiplying, we get 100 Tbps. 

  If you can up the SNR, use non-linear effects or use more spectrum then your 
bandwidth goes up. 

  Current commercial products provide about 10 Tbps per fiber pair. Google does 
this on the FASTER subsea cable with 100 DWDM waves at 100 Gbps. The Internet2 
uses 88 DWDM waves at 100 Gbps. 

  However, the optical channel is not the only limiting factor. One of the 
reasons why 100 Gbps is where we are at right now is that electronics have 
trouble keeping up with faster switching speeds. That's why there is so much 
effort to go all optical on all levels of networking. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
>
> this just wont get solved with words. There can be only one.
  Fair enough. I'll bring my longsword. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

I'll grant you that there is only so much space for poles. However, I used the 
qualifier not permanently to denote that poles do get replaced, either to make 
room for more cables or because they have a finite lifetime. Hence my argument 
is that while poles do consume non-renevable resources, the consumption is not 
permanent and final, as new poles will replace old ones.  

Jared

> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:46 PM
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
>
> Poles actually do permanently consume non renewable resources.  There is only 
> so much room for a pole line along most streets and roads.  Once that room is 
> consumed it is gone.   Even private easements are “perpetual” and “run with 
> the land”.  
> 
> From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:53 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
> 
> 
> where is my popcorn...
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Jaime Solorza 
>   To: Animal Farm 
>   Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:38 AM
>   Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
> 
>   I will stand in for Chuck, not that he needs help,  just haven't tangled in 
> a while... Getting rusty
> 
> 
>   On Sep 17, 2016 9:23 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
>  wrote:
> 
> So, will chuck and jared be gladiator fighting in the cage after Patrick 
> and whoever challenges him ?
> 
> 
> On Sep 17, 2016 5:10 AM, "Jeff Broadwick - Lists"  
> wrote:
> 
>   Great post Jared!
> 
>   Jeff Broadwick 
>   ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>   312-205-2519 Office
>   574-220-7826 Cell
>   jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
> 
>   On Sep 17, 2016, at 1:16 AM, fiber...@mail.com wrote:
> 
> 
>   From: chuck
> 
> 
> 
>   Why should you even get access to my ducts or my poles in the first 
> place?
> 
> Because you put them in the public right of way. 
> If you want private ducts and poles, go negotiate your own easements 
> and build on private land. 
> 
> 
>   I paid to have them put in for my use.
> 
> So you did. We, the public, still get to set the rules (by proxy) on 
> how the poles are to be used on "our" land. 
> 
> 
>   I realize it is somewhat the "law of 
> 
>   the commons" but even then, those who file for a mining claim get 
> the spoils 
> 
>   of the mine.  This is just a different kind of mine.
> 
> The mines analogy isn't really suitable as cables on poles do not 
> permanently consume non-renewable resources. 
> 
> 
>   You still pay an attachment fee because you forced the upgrade of 
> my pole. 
> 
> That only makes sense if I had to pay you until the old pole was paid 
> off. After that you should pay me. 
> 
> 
>   You should be grateful there is a pole there you can use in the 
> first place.
> 
> What's there to be grateful about? I just put in my own damn pole. 
> If there was an existing pole there I could use, you should be 
> grateful for me paying it off for you. 
> 
> 
>   Why not break out your horizontal directional drill and stay the 
> hell off my 
> 
>   poles.
> 
> Let's see how you like that argument when I pass an ordinance to 
> underground all utilities. 
> 
> Just because you were the first one to put in a pole, does not mean 
> you should be the only one allowed to benefit from the public right of way. 
> 
> 
>   (Chuck McCown is playing the part of the pissed off, privately 
> owned, 
> 
>   electrical utility in today's episode.  Chuck McCown is not 
> actually a pole 
> 
>   owner but he plays one on TV).
> 
> Jared is playing the part of the outraged and righteous member of 
> public. In real life Jared is just an ordinary citizen. 
> 
> Jared
>

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: chuck
>
> Why should you even get access to my ducts or my poles in the first place?
  Because you put them in the public right of way. 
  If you want private ducts and poles, go negotiate your own easements and 
build on private land. 

> I paid to have them put in for my use.
  So you did. We, the public, still get to set the rules (by proxy) on how the 
poles are to be used on "our" land. 

> I realize it is somewhat the "law of 
> the commons" but even then, those who file for a mining claim get the spoils 
> of the mine.  This is just a different kind of mine.
  The mines analogy isn't really suitable as cables on poles do not permanently 
consume non-renewable resources. 

> You still pay an attachment fee because you forced the upgrade of my pole. 
  That only makes sense if I had to pay you until the old pole was paid off. 
After that you should pay me. 

> You should be grateful there is a pole there you can use in the first place.
  What's there to be grateful about? I just put in my own damn pole. 
  If there was an existing pole there I could use, you should be grateful for 
me paying it off for you. 

> Why not break out your horizontal directional drill and stay the hell off my 
> poles.
  Let's see how you like that argument when I pass an ordinance to underground 
all utilities. 

  Just because you were the first one to put in a pole, does not mean you 
should be the only one allowed to benefit from the public right of way. 

> (Chuck McCown is playing the part of the pissed off, privately owned, 
> electrical utility in today's episode.  Chuck McCown is not actually a pole 
> owner but he plays one on TV).
  Jared is playing the part of the outraged and righteous member of public. In 
real life Jared is just an ordinary citizen. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> You come along and instantly want access and want a third party (lowest 
> bidder no less) to decide whether or not you are going to overload my pole?
  Strawman argument. One touch make ready and third party installs do not 
preclude proper engineering. 
  Also I never said anything about allowing poles to be overloaded. 

> And then it fails in an ice storm and FERC is all over my ass?
  This is another deflection. FERC will be all over your ass even if it was you 
who built it or if it you who contracted it out. It's no different if it was a 
third party contractor. There is a chain of liability and he who is at fault 
pays. 
 
> The public does not own the poles.
  Correct. 

> They should be grateful that they are even allowed access.
  No. The pole owners should be grateful that they are even allowed in the 
public right of way. 
  Any infrastructure in the public right of way should be administered in such 
a way that it benefits the public. This includes non-discrimination and 
enabling competition. 

> Pioneer's preference.
  Pioneer's preference rules, which are no longer in force, is a great way of 
stifling competition and impeding progress. 
 
> Kinda like I built a toll road.  Now you want to add lanes to the road I 
> built?  
  I already covered this above, but to go with your analogy, no, you do not get 
to have monopoly on toll roads if you built on public land. 

> And I get no say as to the engineering?
  You, not so much. Laws, regulations and industry standards, yes. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: "Carl Peterson" 
>
> Once the town starts making a profit, is it reasonable for them to take that 
> money and plow it into other things or 
> should they start cutting prices so as to cover expenses and not make a 
> profit? 
  It's very, very hard to give up a cash cow, government or not. 

> It would seem to me that it would make sense to fund a future 
> maintenance/upgrade fund, and then cut prices.  
  Rationally, what you should do depends on how easyly you can borrow new 
capital and at what interest rates. 
  In today's situation where money is cheap and interest rates are low, the 
rational thing would be to return profits to owners / cut prices assuming all 
things are equal. 

> My feeling is that it is appropriate for governments to run utilities, but 
> not for governments to run utilities as profit centers to fund other 
> operations. 
  Isn't the latter how most profitable government owned utilities are run? I've 
even heard it with pride how much money the utilities pay into the general 
fund. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

How about we enact one touch make ready and allow third parties to bid on make 
ready work?

No more unreasonable delays and market based costs for make ready work. 

Jared

> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:42 PM
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
>
> Curious, name an obstacle that needs to be removed.
> Not saying there are none.  There are plenty.
> Just curious which one could be removed.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 9:39 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
> 
> He didn't say it was easy or cheap.  More like it can be done, if you fill
> out the paperwork, pay your fees, and wait like everybody else.
> 
> I have to agree.  If the obstacles need to be taken out of the way, they
> should be removed for everyone.  Not just Google because they're special.
> (insert talking points about level playing field, government not picking
> winners and losers, etc.)  I know, this sounds like complaining that Uber
> unfairly competes with taxis, or Airbnb unfairly competes with hotels.  Cry
> me a river, but it's not so funny if it's your ox getting gored.
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 10:11 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city
> 
> > From: "Mike Hammett"
> >
> > You can do whatever you want nearly wherever you want.
>   Never ever had a problem with gaining access to poles or ducts from your
> friendly neighborhood incumbent, never experienced any delays nor had to pay
> an arm and a leg for the pleasure?
> 
> Jared
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> If the obstacles need to be taken out of the way, they 
> should be removed for everyone.
  On this we very much agree. 

> I know, this sounds like complaining that Uber 
> unfairly competes with taxis, or Airbnb unfairly competes with hotels.
  It's not. Uber and AirBNB both chose to ignore laws and regulations. Us mere 
mortals can't do that. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>
> The FCC regulates pole contacts.
  It sure would be nice if they would enforce timely access too.  

> How are existing competitors denying anyone access to anything?
  By dragging out make ready work for months on end. 
  Duct owners can also under certain circumstances deny access to duct space. 

> Why should the 
> power company be forced to replace a pole at their expense if you want to 
> attach your cable to it?
  I don't recall advocation for that. 

  That being said, if I paid for the new pole, why am I still paying pole 
attachment fees for that pole and why aren't the other users paying *me* the 
pole attachment fees?

  Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: "Mike Hammett"
> 
> You can do whatever you want nearly wherever you want.
  Never ever had a problem with gaining access to poles or ducts from your 
friendly neighborhood incumbent, never experienced any delays nor had to pay an 
arm and a leg for the pleasure?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> From: "Harold Bledsoe" 
> 
> Then there's the regulatory challenges they face in every market...
  Is this a polite way of saying that existing regulations do nothing to 
prevent competitors from doing their best to deny Google access to poles and 
ducts, or are there actually any regulations that Google is having a hard time 
fulfilling?

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> Takes a long time to pay 43m back with 500/mo revenue.
  Looking at FY15 financials, their Telecoms division made $3.7M and lost 
$1.7M. So they need "only" 285 gig customers to break even. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> other than price and service from said company
   Aren't those kind of the defining characteristics?
   If you ignore price and service, isn't one ISP pretty much like the other?
   At least very few consumers could tell the difference. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] The latest gig city

[fiberrun]

> One subscriber at the gig level
> 
> http://spectator.org/alabamas-gig-city-has-one-gigabit-broadband-subscriber/
  Clickbait. I really hate poorly written articles like these. There are plenty 
of reasons for and against municipal broadband. If you have a beef with muni 
broadband, at least put some effort in it and come up with some valid critique. 
Don't just produce blogspam like this. 

  I guess it just isn't sexy to report that they have a take rate of about 25% 
and are on track to be profitable within five years. Focusing on the number of 
gigabit subscribers at $500 per month, when there's a reasonable offering of 
services between $35 and $100 per month, just makes the reporter seem petty. 
It's almost like they have an agenda to push, facts be damned, ...

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig

[fiberrun]

We were all small once. 
 
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had illusions of grandeur of selling IP 
transit. It's a phase. 
 
Jared
 

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:09 PM
From: "Paul Stewart" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig

I’m not a fan of any IXP putting caches into their network via route server or 
direct peering… first off “putting one” isn’t enough and where do you draw the 
line?  Using Netflix caches for example…..   
 
The other challenge is that as the IXP grows, the only folks who will benefit 
from it are the smaller peers anyways as the larger folks already have them 
on-net.
 
Also - now the IXP is taking away possible revenue from some of it’s members by 
bringing caches in.  For those members on an IXP that are selling IP Transit 
services, I can tell you that a heavy factor now in how transit is sold is 
related to how much on-net caching is being done (at least for some transit 
providers, not all).
 
I was in contact with a small IXP about 6 months ago as I was preparing for 
where we were going to expand into this upcoming fiscal year and the first 
thing they told me is “and we have an Akamai cache here!” all excited.  This 
wasn’t an attractive feature for me - I was more interested in their platform, 
stability, support etc.
 
It’s all about viewpoint of course …. 
 
Paul
 
 
 

On Sep 11, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 

Which doesn't make sense. Put one on the IX and everyone benefits more than 
each having their own.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Cassidy B. Larson" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:23:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig

I know three of the eyeball networks there already have their own Netflix and 
Akamai clusters.
  

On Sep 11, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 

I'm surprised SLIX doesn't have Akamai.

https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/829[https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/829]

It doesn't surprise me that Netflix isn't there. There isn't a lot of eyeball 
networks. Then again, maybe I don't appreciate the scale of those networks.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:16:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig
 

So ideally you would want to interconnect at your shop?

 

From: Roger Timmerman
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig
 

SLIX started with Xmission and UTOPIA Fiber.  They (Xmission) kept track of the 
peering relationships and provided the IP subnet, UTOPIA Fiber provided a VPLS 
across its network so that anyone could connect to it at any of the major data 
centers in Utah or even at their place of business if it had a UTOPIA Fiber 
connection.  It has definitely grown over the years, and several connect to it 
outside of UTOPIA, but I think most of it still rides across UTOPIA. 
 
Roger

 
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

I seriously doubt you can beat the price I pay.  

 

From: Cassidy B. Larson
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig
 
The SIX extension Xmission/DCIP run. Not sure where they’re at, but I can pick 
them up at Delong. 
SLIX we connect to at Delong St.. but I know others interconnect elsewhere.
Honestly, it’s not too expensive to get a 10G to San Jose from SLC and get on 
the Equinix IX there… or even LA.
I got plenty of capacity I can sell ya if you’re interested? :)
 

On Sep 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
 

Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig

[fiberrun]

We were all small once. 

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had illusions of grandeur of selling IP transit. It's a phase. 

 

Jared

 

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:09 PM
From: "Paul Stewart" 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig


I’m not a fan of any IXP putting caches into their network via route server or direct peering… first off “putting one” isn’t enough and where do you draw the line?  Using Netflix caches for example…..   
 

The other challenge is that as the IXP grows, the only folks who will benefit from it are the smaller peers anyways as the larger folks already have them on-net.

 

Also - now the IXP is taking away possible revenue from some of it’s members by bringing caches in.  For those members on an IXP that are selling IP Transit services, I can tell you that a heavy factor now in how transit is sold is related to how much on-net caching is being done (at least for some transit providers, not all).

 

I was in contact with a small IXP about 6 months ago as I was preparing for where we were going to expand into this upcoming fiscal year and the first thing they told me is “and we have an Akamai cache here!” all excited.  This wasn’t an attractive feature for me - I was more interested in their platform, stability, support etc.

 

It’s all about viewpoint of course …. 

 

Paul

 

 

 


On Sep 11, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
 


Which doesn't make sense. Put one on the IX and everyone benefits more than each having their own.
 


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP



 


From: "Cassidy B. Larson" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:23:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig

I know three of the eyeball networks there already have their own Netflix and Akamai clusters.
 
 



On Sep 11, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
 


I'm surprised SLIX doesn't have Akamai.

https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/829

It doesn't surprise me that Netflix isn't there. There isn't a lot of eyeball networks. Then again, maybe I don't appreciate the scale of those networks.
 


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP



 


From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:16:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig
 


So ideally you would want to interconnect at your shop?



 


From: Roger Timmerman

Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:05 PM

To: af@afmug.com

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig



 



SLIX started with Xmission and UTOPIA Fiber.  They (Xmission) kept track of the peering relationships and provided the IP subnet, UTOPIA Fiber provided a VPLS across its network so that anyone could connect to it at any of the major data centers in Utah or even at their place of business if it had a UTOPIA Fiber connection.  It has definitely grown over the years, and several connect to it outside of UTOPIA, but I think most of it still rides across UTOPIA. 

 

Roger



 

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:





I seriously doubt you can beat the price I pay.  



 


From: Cassidy B. Larson

Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 5:13 PM

To: af@afmug.com

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig



 


The SIX extension Xmission/DCIP run. Not sure where they’re at, but I can pick them up at Delong. 

SLIX we connect to at Delong St.. but I know others interconnect elsewhere.

Honestly, it’s not too expensive to get a 10G to San Jose from SLC and get on the Equinix IX there… or even LA.

I got plenty of capacity I can sell ya if you’re interested? :)

 



On Sep 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

 


Are these things physically located in a single data center?

-Original Message- From: Ivan Kohler Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 4:38 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upstream, going beyond 1 gig 
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:07:20PM +, Chuck McCown wrote:

Like to get an IX in SLC.

Given SLC's size I'd expect there's already an IX.  Indeed, the internet says there's SLIX - http://slix.net/

Recently I was surprised to find there a new IX here in Reno/Tahoe - http://tahoeix.org/

-- 
Ivan Kohler, President and Head Geek, Freeside Internet Services, Inc.
Open-source billing, ticketing and provisioning
for ISPs, VoIP providers and online businesses
http://www.freeside.biz/freeside/

Re: [AFMUG] AE NID/ONT

[fiberrun]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:14 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
> FML is all I have to say. If it was up to me, it'd be GPON.
So, why not put a splitter in the CO, use GPON and call it a day?

Do you need more than a hundred or so drops that they already have?

Jared