On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas.
If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away
(52km fiber pair length total), that was a win. If the homes are
2km from the CO, 32 pair (64km
On Feb 1, 2013, at 22:54, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you have multicast and everyone is watching superbowl at same time,
you're talking up very little bandwidth on that 2.mumble GPON link.
Meh. Since everyone seems to want to be able to pause, rewind, etc.,
multicast doesn't tend
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
On 13-02-01 22:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the discussion here is about muni fiber capabilities and ideal
greenfield
plant designs, existing fiber is irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
Not so
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote:
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering.
Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are
reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one
provider, and they have just
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote:
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering.
Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points
are reasonable comparable to
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Available Providers.
The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who
was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company?
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
providing those
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Available Providers.
The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone
who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company?
I would think in
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:56PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The only place PON made any sense to me was extreme rural areas.
If you could go 20km to a splitter and then hit 32 homes ~1km away
(52km fiber pair length total),
Perhaps I missed a reference to receiver sensitivity in this thread. Since
the receiver optical-electric components are binary in nature, received
optical dB only has to be equal to or greater than the receiver's
sensitivity. Low or high dB received light produces the same quality at the
receiver.
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
providing those services.
That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical
home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with
Ethernet provider
Ok, here's a rough plan assembled from everyone's helpful contributions
and arguing all week, based on the City with which, if I'm lucky, I
might get a job Sometime Soon. :-) (I'm sure some of you can speculate
which city it might be, but Please Don't.)
It's about 3 square miles, and has about
- Original Message -
From: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net
The L0 (ROW, poles conduits) provider, and
in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and
in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider,
aka City
is also a consumer of City 2 City service above L2, and
is also a
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider,
and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type
of L1 service, *ever*. So that's a non-starter.
If you have 4 ISPs, why not put 4 splitters in the
Because telcos specifically want to /discourage/ competition.
You're perilously close to trolling, here, sir...
-jra
Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1
provider,
and
Owen,
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The optimal
open access network (with current or near future technology) is well
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-02-02 10:36, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, but everyone on a splitter must be backhauled to the same L1 provider,
and putting splitters *in the outside plant* precludes any other type
of L1 service,
Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet? What
GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you this
is a good architecture for their PON offering?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Ok, here's a rough plan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Out of curiosity, do you have plans for legal battles or anything? There
have been some other places attempting or running muni broadband that
have resulted in crap like the hilariously named AN ACT TO PROTECT JOBS
AND INVESTMENT BY REGULATING LOCAL
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Why on earth would you do this with PON instead of active Ethernet?
What GPON vendor have you found where their technical staff will tell you
this is a good architecture for their PON offering?
Asked and answered, Scott; have
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its
simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The
optimal
open
Original Message -
From: Dylan N dy...@dylannguyen.net
Out of curiosity, do you have plans for legal battles or anything?
There have been some other places attempting or running muni broadband that
have resulted in crap like the hilariously named AN ACT TO PROTECT
JOBS AND
+1 on Dosarrest, not so crazy price, used them before their support is
awesome. Used to be called whypigsfly, heard that some of their
techniques of mitigation we're used by prolexic as well.
I'm not a sales rep. nor will I ever be.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Joseph Chin l-na...@iodi.se
Jay,
I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these
kinds of networks.
1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting
their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in mind that port density may
or may not be relevant to your situation since
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building
these kinds of networks.
Showoff. :-)
1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're quoting
their Ethernet density on the C7. Also, keep in
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
A layer 1 architecture isn't going to be an economical option for the
foreseeable future so opining on its value is a waste of time...its simple
not feasible now or even 5 years from now because of costs. The
I hope I said E7; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to
stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment;
I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project
just to beginning of build, at this point, likely.
Assuming I get the gig at all.
Owen,
Cross connecting at layer 1 is what I'm saying isn't feasible. If you want
to simply hand them a fiber then sell dark fiber or DWDM ports but trying
to create an architecture around PON or other splitters won't work because
PON splitters aren't compatible with other protocols.
On Sat,
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to
midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly
all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play
It seems that you are (deliberately or otherwise) seriously misconstruing what
I am saying.
I'm saying that if you build an L1 dark fiber system as we have described, the
purchasers can use it to deploy Ethernet, PON, or any other technology.
I'm not saying it's how I would build out a PON
- Original Message -
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority
of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of
multi-tenant, about a dozen city facilities, and a bunch of retail
multi-unit business.
I
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no
other reason but get the best pricing you can.
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you
a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and
resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so
they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I
had gathered, it's still harder than them doing
On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
It's about 3 square miles, and has about 8000 passings, the majority
of which are single or double family residential; a sprinkling of
multi-tenant, about a
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is
much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro
ethernet switches.
On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd also talk with Zhone,
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and
resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so
they don't have to do it themselves; while it's not a difficult as I
had gathered,
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you
a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service
provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely,
you'll want
- Original Message -
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
So you are going to prohibit the operator of the fiber plant from
running layer 3 services, but then turn around and let them offer
IPTV? That seems quite inconsistent to me. And just because it's hard?
No; I wouldn't
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
6) And pursuant to 3, perhaps I could even set up the IPTV service and
resell that to the L3 provider to bundle with their IP service, so
they don't have to do it themselves; while it's
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:14:56PM -0500, Brandon Ross
wrote:
This whole thing is the highway analogy to me. The fiber is the road.
The city MIGHT build a rest stop (layer 2), but shouldn't be allowed to
either be in the trucking business (layer 3), nor in the
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers
wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else.
It sure seems like just pushing the competition (or lack thereof) up
the stack.
Could be. To compete
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Having multiple people build the infrastructure would be just as
inefficeint as if every house had two roads built to it by two private
companies.
I was going to trot on the Manhattan 26-crossbuck telephone pole, and
multiple
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
Running a decent layer 3 service is hard too. Isn't the whole
point to
let these service providers compete with each other on the quality
and
cost of their services?
You could say the
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires
compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber (nor is
Jay,
While its certainly technically possible to offer linear video in a shared
network model the content owners have big objections of that. There really
is no way to do wholesale IPTV except for a very few organizations like the
cable coop (NCTC http://www.nctconline.org/).
On Sat, Feb 2,
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and requires
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni
MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and
requires
compatible gear on both sides and no one has enough fiber
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Owen
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create
solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost
effective
method of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive
- Original Message -
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I
confess to a certain level of GPON ignorance).
Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that).
There is no reason whatsoever that one
On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
..
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation
and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In
fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE (
On Feb 2, 2013 7:56 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Well, I would assume the splitters have to be compatible with the OLT/ONT
chosen by a prospective L1 client, no? Or is GPON GPON, which is GPON?
Splitters are passive. They only split light. They care not what
information the
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized
splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so are
pretty much just limited to higher
OK, think about it like this. The most efficient topology to provide both
coverage and resiliency is a ring with nodes (shelves) from which end
users
are connected. That ring (usually Gig or 10Gig Ethernet today) needs to
be
connected to a central location so you can interconnect to
Jason,
Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that
used the modulated RF approach.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
..
This is not correct. DOCSIS
The difference between building a ring and then dropping connections and
home running all of the connections is much more than difference in fiber
count. However, its certainly true that home running works in some
greenfield deployments and I hope I have not confused anyone on that point.
A
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
I'm not saying that you have to, but that's the most efficient and
resilient (both of those are important right?) way of arranging the gear.
The exact loop length from the shelves to the end users is up to you
This has been a fascinating discussion :) While we don't quite qualify
as a small city, we do have quite a dispersion of coverage across our
residence halls and general campus. There is an ongoing RFP process to
build out our own CATV distribution (or more generally, to avoid the
resident CATV
Technically, any of the architectures espoused by some of the commentators
on this thread will work, and would at least be an order of magnitude
better than what is available in the local loop today.
One of the commentators, however, did underscore the biggest challenge by
far to national
If the goal is the minimize the capital outlay of a greenfield
build, your model can be more efficient, depending on the geography
covered. Basically you're assuming that the active electronics to
make a ring are cheaper than building high count fiber back to a
central point. There are
C7 is old school. E7/E20 is far far far far far far different.
On Feb 2, 2013 2:55 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Jay,
I'm spotty on mailing lists since most of my time is spent building these
kinds of networks.
1) Talk to more vendors than just Calix, especially if they're
Word to dropping docsis science on NANOG.
On Feb 2, 2013 3:34 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
I hope I said E7; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to
stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment;
I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press.
What does Cisco shitty metro switches have to do with anything?
Haay we have the best shitty metro-e boxes around. We're awesome.
On Feb 2, 2013 4:49 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is
much more of a chance to
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you
didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:17:24PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably
going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Here's the thing, over the time frame your describing you're probably going
to have to look at more fiber runs just because of growth in areas that you
didn't build for before. Even if you nail the total growth of homes and
On 13-02-02 21:29, Scott Helms wrote:
Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that
used the modulated RF approach.
From what I have read, Verizon's FIOS does that. RFoG cable TV for
certain frequencies, normal ethernet data for other frequencies, and
dedicated
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
Something to consider about dark fibre L1 service: If city lets Service
Providers perform installations (string from telephone pole to homes
etc), you need to worry about damages they can cause. And in cases
On 13-02-02 23:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable
moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear
aggregates it from L1 to whatever.
No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems.
Not
Live TV still makes up the majority of video viewing.
http://www.thecab.tv/main/bm~doc/multiscreeninsights-2q12-p.pdf
Multicasting video remains a valuable video distribution technique.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a
necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about
Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Ross [mailto:br...@pobox.com]
Sent:
Scott:
Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@zcorum.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
But it doesn't matter either way,
Don't know what frequency they use but ppm.co.uk does all the way to 14ghz (our
ku band) over dwdm..
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Date: 02/02/2013 10:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: 'Scott
72 matches
Mail list logo
