Re: Conduit Lease/IRU Pricing

[Fletcher Kittredge]

A big issue you don't mention is the easement, the legal right to place
conduit. What does it mean to buy conduit if you don't have an easement on
the property to use the conduit?



On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 5:28 PM James Jun  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 01:15:11PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > I've been following your work on LinkedIn. Great stuff.
> >
> >
> > I'm actually in a situation where I am on both sides of the transaction.
> I've got a network I built that I've been asked pricing on and interested
> in growth opportunities. One of the opportunities I have for growth quoted
> me at roughly the cost of construction (or at least what I would budget for
> it, anyway) for a 20-year term with a reasonably annual maintenance fee.
> When I saw that, I kinda figured that if I was going to spend that kind of
> money, I'd choose a permanent cost as opposed to 20-year terms and the
> opportunity to place however many conduits I wanted as opposed to just
> getting one.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> Without getting into specifics of your potential project, I can only
> comment on what I've seen and can cite examples of.
>
> You mentioned 'opportunity to place however many conduits I wanted' -- are
> you talking about ability to pull your own innerducts inside an empty outer
> conduit you purchase, or are you talking about a joint trench partaking,
> where you have the opportunity to pay pro-rata share of trench construction
> to install as many conduits you want to have in the ground (subject to
> local authority approval ofcourse)?
>
>
> If it is the latter (joint trench), this is very straight forward in the
> utility industry.  It often goes like this:
>
> - Say it costs the lead company (company who is doing the project) a
> figurative (just for example of this conversation) cost of $1 million to
> install 500 feet of 24 - 4" conduits in a large boulevard.
> - Your company proposes to jump into the trench and you want 6 - 4"
> conduits for your own backbone.
> - The most common and simple cost for you is straight-up pro-rata share:
> 25% of the trench costs for 6 ducts out of 24, so you need to pay up $250K
> to get your 6 - 4" conduits.
> - If the lead company is installing smaller pull box manholes for cable
> pulls, in most cases, you will have the right of transit to use those
> manholes so you can use the very conduits you own.
> - If the lead company is installing large underground vaults, don't be
> surprised if they don't let you in it -- they'll likely require you to pay
> additional costs to install your own separate manhole, where your 6 - 4"
> conduits will break off from the main trench, and lead into your own
> dedicated 4'x4' manhole.  If this is not possible (i.e. road is full, local
> authority couldn't permit it due to conflict & heavy congestion with other
> utility lines in the area), then the lead company may also charge you a
> reasonable manhole license fee for you to use their vaults beyond the basic
> right of transit ('beyond' as in, if you need to install a splice case or
> slack coil, as opposed to your cable simply transiting thru the said
> manhole).  For example, Empire City Subawy (ECS) duct system run by Verizon
> in NYC charges a publicized rate of $314/year for each splice case in an
> ECS manhole.
>
>
> The legal definitions of what you're exactly getting for paying that $250K
> above is largely up to the lead company and the defined contract terms of
> the Joint Trench Agreement.  I've seen following cases: (a) you outright
> own the title to those 6 - 4" conduits in perpetuity; (b) you don't own the
> title, but you get an IRU or lease of 99 years to those conduits; or (c)
> you only get short-medium (5-25 years) IRU, but then it would probably have
> to be at a lower price that is more commercially reasonable to both parties.
>
> Case (a) can be common in joint trench projects that are organized by
> local authorities (i.e. b/c municipality required the street dig to be a
> joint trench), and lead company has no interest in maintaining any manholes
> or conduits, beyond the bare minimum required for their own cable.  In
> these situations, manholes (municipalities often call them 'joint
> manholes') become effectively unmanaged chaotic no-man's land, where nobody
> owns the manholes, much less maintain them.  I've seen situations where
> municipality had to step in to fix a broken manhole cover/frame, because
> nobody in the joint trench would step in to take responsibility.
>
> Cases (b) and (c) are often done by more larger telecom installations,
> where lead company is building a true joint-use infrastructure and would
> like to maintain it over long term.  These are usually part of large duct
> systems, and the lead company would typically take charge in maintaining
> the entirety of the trench and its manholes over their llifetime; as such,
> members of such joint trench systems will be separately charged maintenance
> fee as previously discussed.
>
>
> Outside 

Article: DoD, DoJ press FCC for industry-wide BGP security standard

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Fierce Telecom: DoD, DoJ press FCC for industry-wide BGP security standard

Upstream bandwidth usage

[Fletcher Kittredge]

OVBI: Average upstream data usage has nearly tripled since 2018
<https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/ovbi-average-upstream-data-usage-has-nearly-tripled-2018>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: LEC copper removal from commercial properties

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:20 PM  wrote:

>
> >I believe that should be 19-72A1.
> >
> >https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-72A1.pdf
> >
> >Essentially, all services must be transitioned to fiber or wireless by
> August 2nd, 2022.
>
> I'm reading that document and that's not what it appears to say at all.
>

As someone who participated in that proceeding, your reading is not totally
correct, but much more accurate.

>
> This seems to be about discontinuing the artificial price restrictions of
> 2 and 4 wire dry pair loops that LECs resell to service providers, e.g.
> competitive DSL providers.
>

It goes a bit further than that. Their prices are no longer regulated,
under this particular regime but maybe others, and they can not offer the
unbundled copper loop service at all.

A key point is that copper loop Unbundled Network Elements (UNE) are no
longer required to be offered in *urban* areas. Key distinction. In
suburban and rural areas, UNE DS0 (copper loops) are still a required
element.

>
> I don't see anything in this order which would mandate that LECs
> discontinue
> their own DSL or POTS services.  It would be especially ludicrous since in
> many parts of many markets, there is no alternative at this time.
>

True. And for this reason suburban and rural UNE DS0 are still required.

For what it is worth, we fought against this discontinuance.


> Shane
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

AWS and IPv6

[Fletcher Kittredge]

The Register <https://www.theregister.com/> says: AWS claims 'monumental
step forward' with optional IPv6-only networks
<https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/24/aws_claims_monumental_step_forward/>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Increase bandwidth usage in partial-mesh network?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Hey! From the description it must be one of our clients!

Just beware if you go this route, a network that is probably already
unstable and unreliable will become at least an order of magnitude worse.
You can't fix ten lbs of stuff into a 4 lb stuff bag. The internet
protocols do not tolerate congestion well.


On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 1:31 PM Adam Thompson 
wrote:

> Looking for recommendtions or suggestions...
>
> I've got a downstream customer asking for help;  they have a private
> internal network that I've taken to calling the "partial-mesh network from
> hell": it's got two partially-overlapping radio networks, mixed with
> islands of isolated fiber connectivity.
> Dynamic routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF, EIGRP, etc.) generally will only
> select the _best_ path, they won't spread the load unless all paths are
> equal - and they are very unequal in this network, ECMP would likely fail
> horribly.
> The network is becoming bandwidth-limited, so they're wanting to make use
> of all available paths, not just the single "best" path.  It's also remote
> and spread out, so adding new links or upgrading existing links is
> difficult and expensive.
> Oh, and their routers are overdue for a refresh, so acquiring replacement
> h/w is now possible.
>
> Has anyone come across any product or technology that can handle the
> multi-path-ness and the private-network-ness like a regular router, but
> also provides the intelligent per-flow path steering based on e.g. latency,
> like an SD-WAN device (and/or some firewalls)?
>
> Here's hoping,
> -Adam
>
> *Adam Thompson*
> Consultant, Infrastructure Services
> [image: 1593169877849]
> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive
> Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
> (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
> athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
> www.merlin.mb.ca
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Telecommunications network drafting software

[Fletcher Kittredge]

For physical plant (fiber) design, analysis and inventory, Vetro is really
useful.


On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:37 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> Would you care to share some pointers to drafting software which you use
> to draw up architectural drafts (for telecoms networks, including cable
> operators' networks) ?
>
> I've found Visio to be a bit weak in this respect, even after adding third
> party stencils.
>
> One product I'm exploring is ConceptDraw's "diagram" product, but I'd like
> to hear about anything you can share with me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Etienne
>
> --
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Fiber in the power space

[Fletcher Kittredge]

We are looking for an engineering firm with significant experience in FTTX
in the power space. Extra points if you have worked with Co-ops.

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: why am i in this handbasket? (was Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?)

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:18 PM Randy Bush  wrote:

> how did that work out for the ptts?  :)
>

Though its release slipped by three years, by 1995 ATM had started to
replace IP as the protocol of choice. By 1999, IP was used only by a small
number of academic networks.

Nah, I don't think there is anywhere in the multiverse where fat pipes and
dumb switches doesn't win.



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Ben;

I am sure your SLA's have force majeure clauses. I mean, they must, right?


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:57 PM Ben Cannon  wrote:

> We’ve already had 1 building delay us access pushing us into an SLA breach
> due to COVID-19 fuckups. I mean “procedures".
> -Ben.
>
> -Ben Cannon
> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> b...@6by7.net
>
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2020, at 10:22 AM, g...@1337.io  wrote:
>
> With talk of there being an involuntary statewide (WA) and then national
> quarantines (house arrest) for multiple weeks, has anyone put thought into
> the impacts of this on your networks if/when this comes to fruition?
>
> We're already pushing the limits with telecommuters / those that are WFH,
> but I can only imagine what things will look like with everyone stuck at
> home for any duration of time.
>
>
>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: FCC ... [REALLY new laws US passed today (19/12/2019)]

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Both TRACED and TRUE were passed by both houses today and are expected to
be signed by the current POTUS because of the bipartisan support.

 The Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED)
Act (S. 151)
<https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/S151RFH_SUS_xml.pdf>

 The Truth-In-Billing, Remedies, and User Empowerment over (TRUE) Fees Act
(S. 510 / H.R. 1220)
<https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/True%20Fees.pdf>




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Seeking Federal Cybersecurity resources for US ISPs

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I am looking for pointers to US Federal cybersecurity resources
specifically targeted to ISPs.

thank you

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: DOs and DONTs for small ISP

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I would respectfully point out that my point about the importance of
finding the right partners. For you, sounds like it was good to have
opportunity to get out of this venture.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:40 PM Warren Kumari  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:09 PM Fletcher Kittredge 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is your checklist in descending order of importance:
> >
> > market opportunity
> > finding the right partners (see below)
> > financial
> > sales and marketing
> > organizational capacity and HR
> > legal, regulatory
> > capital acquisition
> > security
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...
> > technical including equipment selection, routing policy, filtering, etc
> >
> > It is a stone cold lock that the success of your new ISP will governed
> by factors other than technical. Your most important task is to find
> competent  financial and marketing people you can respect and trust. If the
> market opportunity exists and you find them, you will succeed. If you
> don't, all the technical excellence in the world won't help you. The road
> is littered with technically excellent companies that failed.
>
> Indeed, but you *also* need to have some technical clue. Two or three
> years ago a friend and I tried to start a local wireless ISP -- I was
> doing this purely as a "My home Internet access sucks, and I'll
> happily donate time, equipment, IP space and some startup capital to
> fix this" play -- unfortunately it turns out that he and I had very
> different ideas on, well, basically everything. I wanted an actual
> architecture / design, and diagrams and routin' and such. He was much
> more of "We don't need a list of IPs, if I ping it and can't reach it
> it must be free" / "routing is too hard, let's just put it all in a
> switch and... um... NAT!". I wanted a plan, and was willing to put in
> the time and effort to build Ansible / Puppet / an NMS / AAA, etc, he
> was more seat-of-the-pants.
>
> But yes, even if we had good technology this would have failed - there
> was no real business plan (other than "The current provider is really
> bad, if we build something else, people will be breaking down the door
> to sign up"), no real marketing plan (see previous), etc.
>
> He was also a bit of a gun nut, and so would arrive at customers with
> a (holstered) firearm belted on -- even in Virginia this was not a
> winning business move.
>
> Starting a successful ISP is this day and age is hard - make sure
> that, if you do it, you and whoever you are doing this with are
> compatible, are both committed, and have similar views on things...
>
> W
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:05 AM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
> >>
> >> hi there,
> >>
> >> I know there are folks from lots of small ISPs here and I wanted to
> check-in on asking few advice points as I am involved building an ISP from
> green-field.
> >>
> >> Usually, it's pretty straight forward to cover high-level important
> things, filters, routing policies, etc.but we all know the devil is in the
> details.
> >>
> >> I am putting together a public DOs and DONTs blog post and would love
> to hear from those who have built ISPs and have recommendations from
> Billing to Interconnection, Routing policy to Out of the band  & console
> setup, Software recommendations, etc. Bottom line is that I would like to
> publish a checklist with these recommendations which I hope will be useful
> for all.
> >>
> >> thanks in advance for your help and recommendation.
> >>
> >> Mehmet
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fletcher Kittredge
> > GWI
> > 207-602-1134
> > www.gwi.net
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>---maf
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: DOs and DONTs for small ISP

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Here is your checklist in descending order of importance:

   1. market opportunity
   2. finding the right partners (see below)
   3. financial
   4. sales and marketing
   5. organizational capacity and HR
   6. legal, regulatory
   7. capital acquisition
   8. security
   9. ...
   10. ...
   11. ...
   12. technical including equipment selection, routing policy, filtering,
   etc

It is a stone cold lock that the success of your new ISP will governed by
factors other than technical. Your most important task is to find
competent  financial and marketing people you can respect and trust. If the
market opportunity exists and you find them, you will succeed. If you
don't, all the technical excellence in the world won't help you. The road
is littered with technically excellent companies that failed.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:05 AM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> hi there,
>
> I know there are folks from lots of small ISPs here and I wanted to
> check-in on asking few advice points as I am involved building an ISP from
> green-field.
>
> Usually, it's pretty straight forward to cover high-level important
> things, filters, routing policies, etc.but we all know the devil is in the
> details.
>
> I am putting together a public DOs and DONTs blog post and would love to
> hear from those who have built ISPs and have recommendations from Billing
> to Interconnection, Routing policy to Out of the band  & console setup,
> Software recommendations, etc. Bottom line is that I would like to publish
> a checklist with these recommendations which I hope will be useful for all.
>
> thanks in advance for your help and recommendation.
>
> Mehmet
>
>
>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: NTP via GPS

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:12 AM Richard  wrote:

> I found this article very helpful as I knew very little. I was smarter
> for reading it though it may be to basic for many:
>
> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/gps-ntp-server/
>
It is basic and has at least some inaccuracies. I skimmed it and found:

"The NTP protocol was originally developed for the LINUX operating system. "

Kids these days so much history lost.

For those under 60 revolutions of the sun: NTP and related protocols far
pre-date Linux. Linux is a relatively late arriving implementation of Unix.
The vast majority of intellectual property behind Linux was from prior
variants of Unix; Linux was just a free, unencumbered version that was
widely adopted.


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: residential/smb internet access in 2019 - help?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I believe there is no Federal requirement that there be a Provider of Last
Resort (POLR). State law might require it, but in at least some states
there is possible to have areas without a POLR. At the national level the
regulatory theory is that when there is sufficient competition in a market,
the POLR requirement is relieved. In any case, POLR refers only to phone
service, not Internet.


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:56 PM Jeff Shultz  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM david raistrick 
> wrote:
> >
> > folks,
> >
> > I've been away from nanog for a long time - and away from the ISP world
> for longer.
> >
> > Looking at a house in a new area, at copper splice box out front,
> bellsouth fiber markers as well (yes, that's usually just passing by. but
> it's there).  Owners since '82 said the telephone company was AT - but
> the New AT apparently no longer offers phone or internet service there.
> >
>
> It seems like _someone_ has to be the CLEC and "Carrier of Last
> Resort" for the area. Not that that means you are going to get the
> service you want.
>
> Check with the Florida Public Services Commission for what you should
> be able to expect: http://www.psc.state.fl.us/
>
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>
> --
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>
> <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/>
> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>
> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _ This message
> contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual
> named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
> distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
> from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed,
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does
> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _
>
>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Last Mile Design

[Fletcher Kittredge]

For my fellow americans, LLUB stands for Local Loop UnBundling. What we
might call a Unbundled Network Element.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:49 AM Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> >> In any case, we are now building out our own fiber to cover the gaps
> >> left by TDC. Here the end user has to pay DKK 12,000 (USD 1,824 / EUR
> >> 1,608) one time fee and with that he gets everything including 5 years
> >> of free internet. This works out at DKK 200 / month including 25% VAT
> >> tax (USD 30 / EUR 27).
> >
> > Very interesting - don't you feel that an initial outlay like that could
> > put some potential customers off? Then again, per capita income in
> > Denmark, I'd imagine, could allow most to think about this. If all that
> > buys me Internet access for 5 years before I have to shell out anymore
> > wedge, I'd do it.
>
> In Sweden it's very common that people who live in detached house areas
> have to pay 1500-3000EUR to get attached to the fiber network as it's
> being built out. There are even bank loans you can get to pay for this,
> and pay it off over time. It's considered to be a good deal because it
> improves the value of the house as well as a huge improvement over having
> satellite-dish/terrestrial TV and ADSL/LTE for Internet access, now
> instead you can pay 30-40EUR a month to get a everything over the fiber.
>
> Now, I like the LLUB model where ISPs get access to the dark fiber all the
> way to the customer, and we do have that here as well, just not as
> commonly as I'd like. That's where https://www.bahnhof.se/villafiber/
> comes from where they offer 10GE for 50EUR a month. This is done on Telia
> LLUB:ed dark fiber which costs around 15EUR a month (regulated price).
> It's a great PR case for "dark fiber access rocks and bitstream sucks".
> You get IPv6 in there as well, which isn't commonly available on most of
> the bitstream access services (because not only do we not do PON, we don't
> do PPPoE either here in Sweden).
>
> So it's a mixed bag and pricing and functionality could definitely be
> better, but the FTTH rollout has gone quite well here and it's as usual
> 10-15 different factors contributing but the willingness of the population
> who lives in houses to fork out 1500-3000EUR for fiber install has made
> this a lot less cash flow misery for the ISPs that roll this out. I just
> wish there would have been a requirement for everybody to actually rent
> this dark fiber out (which there isn't unless you're one of the biggest
> players) because after paying those 1500-3000EUR and you ask the fiber
> installation company "who owns this fiber?" they say "we do" and if you
> ask "ok, I'd like it connected to someone else" they will say "huh? what
> do you mean". There is an unfortunate common conflation between the fiber
> optic cable and the services offered on it.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Last Mile Design [American Operators]

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I find the input to this discussion from non-US operators very useful.
Thank you. One flaw of America is our parochialism and isolation means we
don't learn from experiences elsewhere. We are so used to leading the world
in technology that we have very little exposure to advances outside of the
US. This is particularly true in the ISP world were demonstrably other
regions are ahead of the US.

Personally, I would be very interested in learning more about what is going
on in New Zealand and Scandinavia. Pointers to background reading would be
deeply appreciated, or even good search terms.

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Effects of Cold Front on Internet Infrastructure - U.S. Midwest

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Mel;

You are absolutely right. I should have been more specific in my
description of the problem.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mel Beckman  wrote:

> Fletcher,
>
> I don’t think that’s true. I find no specs on fiber dB loss being a
> function of ambient temperature. I do find fiber optic application data
> sheets for extreme temperature applications of -500F and +500F
> (spacecraft). You’d think if temperature affected fiber transmission
> characteristics, they’d see it in space.
>
> What you likely were seeing was connector loss, owing either to improper
> installation, incorrect materials, or unheated regen enclosures.
>
> Insertion loss (IL) failures, for instance, in the cold are a direct
> result of cable termination component shrinkage. That’s why regen and patch
> enclosures need to be heated as well as cooled.
>
> All fiber termination components have stated temperature limits. As
> temperatures approach -40F, the thermoplastic components in a
> cable's breakout, jacketing, and fiber fanout sections shrink more than the
> optical glass. Ruggedized connectors help somewhat, but the rule is that
> you can’t let optical connectors and assemblies get really cold (or really
> hot).
>
> A typical spec for a single-mode OSP connector is:
>
> Operating -30C (-22F) to +60C (+140F)
>
> The range for the corresponding Single Mode fiber is:
>
> Operating -55C (-67F) to +70C (+158F)
> Storage -60C (-76F) to +70C (+158F)
> Installation -30C (-22F) to +50C (+122F)
>
> All professional outside plant engineers know these requirements. So if
> you’re seeing failures, somebody is breaking a rule.
>
>  -mel
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:05 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:
>
>
> Cold changes the transmission characteristics of fiber. At one point we
> were renting some old dark fiber from the local telephone company in
> northern Maine. When it would get below -15%-degree F the dB would get bad
> enough that the link using that fiber would stop working. The telephone
> company was selling us dark fiber because regulation required them to. They
> refused to give us another fiber nor inspect/repair. They took the position
> they were required to sell us fiber, not working fiber.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>> For anyone running IP networks in the Midwest, are you having to do
>> anything special to keep your networks up?
>>
>> For the data centres, is this cold front a chance to reduce air
>> conditioning costs, or is it actually straining the infrastructure?
>>
>> I'm curious, from a +27-degree C summer's day here in Johannesburg.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
>
> --
> Fletcher Kittredge
> GWI
> 207-602-1134
> www.gwi.net
>
>
>

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Effects of Cold Front on Internet Infrastructure - U.S. Midwest

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Cold changes the transmission characteristics of fiber. At one point we
were renting some old dark fiber from the local telephone company in
northern Maine. When it would get below -15%-degree F the dB would get bad
enough that the link using that fiber would stop working. The telephone
company was selling us dark fiber because regulation required them to. They
refused to give us another fiber nor inspect/repair. They took the position
they were required to sell us fiber, not working fiber.


On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:41 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

> For anyone running IP networks in the Midwest, are you having to do
> anything special to keep your networks up?
>
> For the data centres, is this cold front a chance to reduce air
> conditioning costs, or is it actually straining the infrastructure?
>
> I'm curious, from a +27-degree C summer's day here in Johannesburg.
>
> Mark.
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

[Fletcher Kittredge]

What about my right to not have this crap on NANOG?

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Zbyněk Pospíchal <zby...@dialtelecom.cz>
wrote:

> Dne 17/05/2018 v 18:14 Sander Steffann napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> >
> > But this regulation increases essential liberty for individuals, so I
> don't understand your argument...
>
> No, it don't. It has two aspects:
>
> 1. It brings new positive defined rights. But as with any other positive
> defined rights, it brings an obligation for anyone other to provide such
> rights, it requires enforcement, inspections/whatever which anyone in
> Europe must pay from taxes and it requires implementation of a lot of
> rules, possible changing of existing internal systems etc. etc. in
> companies which will be paid from their revenue, so again from consumer
> money.
>
> 2. It would be the true in an ideal situation. In the real world, there
> is no ideal situation. Accept the fact that if you would like to keep
> any data private, you must not tell them to anyone. You. You are the one
> who can decide about your data and who can really protect your data, no
> one else, no government, no GDPR. There is a lot of anonymization
> techniques, strong encryption and other things helping to cover who
> used/published/steal your private data when it is done by experienced
> professionals. It could help a little bit to keep private data protected
> againest beginner and intermediate data thieves and perhaps againest
> some kinds of stupid mistakes, maybe. Nothing more. Is it enough when we
> mention all the costs, including hidden? I don't think so.
>
>
> BTW, nobody told me he is going to propose such regulation before the
> last EP elections, no party I have been able to vote has anything like
> this nor oposing anything like this in their program.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Zbynek
>



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Scott Morizot <tmori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the big picture here is that they helped fund the development of IP
> and received
> large enough v4 allocations at the outset that they haven't had to use
> kludges like RFC1918


Um, sorry but as an old timer and a former employee of the company that
owned 10/8 and returned it back to the address pool...who is it you are
claiming "helped fund the development of IP?"



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Last Week's Canadian Fiber Cut

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Rod Beck <rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>
wrote:

> Unless I am mistaken, that is an old legacy route. I don't think it is a
> new build. I know at one time Hibernia was selling its undersea link from
> Halifax to Boston as a back up for that route. On the other hand, there
> have been some Canadian carrier builds recently so may be it's not legacy.
>
No, this is not a legacy route. It was a new route constructed in 2012 as
part of the Federal BTOP ARRA program. It is a 1,100 mile high strand count
fiber ring around Maine with multiple border crossings. Dozens of carriers
are using it.


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI

Re: Last Week's Canadian Fiber Cut

[Fletcher Kittredge]

There is a third route from Halifax -> New Brunswick -> Portland, ME ->
[Albany, Boston]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Clinton Work <clin...@scripty.com> wrote:

> I can't speak for the Bell Aliant network, but I'm only aware of two
> diverse fiber routes out of Halifax, Nova Scotia.   Halifax -> New
> Brunswick -> Quebec City is the Canadian route and Halifax -> Boston is
> the diverse route.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017, at 01:52 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > Perhaps some transatlantic fallback?  It looks like the only cable out
> > there is the Greenland one.. guessing that’s not very competitive?  It
> > only gets you to Iceland it seems.
> >
>
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: EFF Call for sign-ons: ISPs, networking companies and engineers opposed to FCC privacy repeal

[Fletcher Kittredge]

The vast majority of obligations you describe continue to exist and don't
have anything to do with this bill.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Joe Loiacono <jloia...@csc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Lowering barriers to entry is where the next political focus should be.
> >
> > Joe Loiacono
> >
>
> And there you have much of the problem with this privacy bill.
>
> Read the actual Report and Order:  https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_
> public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf <https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_
> public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf>
>
> 219 pages
>
> You want to start a competitive ISP these days?   Make sure you:
>
> Incorporate your business
> Obtain Liability, Workers Comp, Unemployment, Auto Insurance
> Comply with the FCC Privacy Act (short reading, requires considerable
> investment in tracking opt in, opt out, privacy policies)
> File the mandatory FCC 477 filings twice a year with detailed information
> on the geolocation of all of your customers and service area.
> If offering VoIP service file your 499-A and Quarterly 499-Q’s with the FCC
> Draft your “Open Internet Disclosure Statement”, pay a FCC lawyer a couple
> grand to renew it, make sure it’s prominent on your website
> Build your website
> Obtain bandwidth and IP, fill out your ARIN information.
> Make up your “Consumer Label” for Broadband:
> https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadband-services <
> https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadband-services>
> (probably need a lawyer for this too..)
> Pay the lawyer to write your “Terms of Service” so that you have at least
> some chance of surviving the lawsuits
> Implement your CALEA plan and file that paperwork with the FBI so they can
> find you
> Register with the Copyright office so that you can deal with DMCA notices.
> Establish your copyright policy and procedures.  Have your lawyer review
> it.
> Make sure you comply with 18 USC 2258A regarding reporting and
> registration for kiddie porn, train your employees
> Make sure you have a CPNI policy, training, and report to the FCC yearly
> Implement and file your Section 255 “Disability Rights” policy and make
> sure you file yearly with the FCC your information
>
> Slap up a Ubiquiti access point and you can now make millions of dollars
> in short order.
>
> I’m sure I forgot a few things like “build your network”, but that’s
> simple.
>
> Mark
>
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Bandwidth Savings

[Fletcher Kittredge]

The problem with the local cache[s] is the bandwidth cost of populating the
cache and keeping it coherent can be greater than the bandwidth saved. From
your description, I would expect this to be the case so a local cache will
not help. Rule of thumb is if your downstream traffic is not at least
3gb/sec, you won't see a win from a cache. This problem can be mitigated if
you can find other large bandwidth consumers on the island and partner to
share a cache. Examples of potential partners would be your competitors,
universities, government organisations, etc.  The savings can be
significant.

If there is a local peering point on the islands, this would be the best
place for shared caches. Sharing caches via an existing non-profit peering
organization or having a non-profit, educational organization, or the
government take the lead can lower the suspicion barrier and result in more
sign-ups.


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:58 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:08:45 -0500, Keenan Singh said:
>
> > do have a Layer 2 Circuit between the Island and Miami, I am seeing there
> > are WAN Accelerators where they would put a Server on either end and sort
> > of Compress and decompress the Traffic before it goes over the Layer 2, I
> > have never used this before, has any one here used anything like this,
> what
>
> Those will probably not help a lot with https: data, as a properly
> encrypted
> stream is very close to random bits and thus not very compressible.
>
> As others have noted, your best chances are getting content providers to
> give
> you a local cache of their most popular content.
>



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Fiber Costs [Was: Re: SoCal FIOS outage(?) / static IP readdressing]

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Numbers for building fiber optic systems are out there if you do the
research. Joining the FTTH Council is a good start. One thing to recognise
is that the numbers vary widely based on what is being built and where it
is being built. There are large regional, technology, and product
variations. Verizon has economies of scale few can match.

Having said that, some of the numbers listed are unrecognizably low.



On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote:

>
> I don't know about the rest of the list, but I find these numbers
> fascinating.  There's probably not that many people who are allowed
> to share them, but if more could I think that would be educational
> for a lot of folks.
>
> In a message written on Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 08:37:19AM -0500, Jared Mauch
> wrote:
> > I’ve been thinking of the same in my underserved area.  Labor is $5/foot
> here and despite friends and colleagues telling me to move, it seems I have
> a sub-60 month ROI (and sub-year for some areas I’ve modeled with modest
> uptake rates of 15-20% where the other options are fixed wireless, Cellular
> data or dial).
>
> In a message written on Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:50:48PM +, Luke
> Guillory wrote:
> > Our model is 15k a mile all in, this is  for aerial  not underground for
> our HFC/Coax builds. A partner of ours models their underground fiber
> builds at 30k a mile.
>
> In a message written on Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:08:51AM -0500, Shawn L
> wrote:
> > Depending on the area and conditions (rock, etc).  We're seeing
> >
> > $4 /foot Aerial
> > $5-$7 /foot direct bury
> > $10 - $14 /foot directional bore
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Honorary Unsubscribe: Leo Beranek

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Talk about a life well led. Leo Beranek had 102 years of sustained
creativity. Any one of his three or four careers would have been
remarkable. In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, he laid the foundation that young
whippersnappers such as Cerf and Postel would build on. He was contributing
into his 100s. He was always a kind and pleasant man who led by example and
deference.


On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:

> How many people remember that Bolt Beranek and Newman was originally an
> acoustical consultancy, specializing in concert halls?
>
>   http://www.honoraryunsubscribe.com/leo_beranek.html?awt_l=ACI.7_
> m=JXfIgZRK.SAPkr
>
> Happy Landings, Leo!
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
> Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647
> 1274
>



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
207-602-1134
www.gwi.net

Re: Zayo Extortion

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Niels Bakker 

third party single pole administrator regimes

[Fletcher Kittredge]

This is outside plant related. Ignore if all you do is configure routers
(not that there is anything wrong with that.)

I would be interested in any network provider's experiences with third
party single pole administrator regulatory regimes, such as Connecticut's.
Please respond privately and I will summarize if there is any interest.

thanks

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
www.gwi.net

Standard terminology for a dark fiber path?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together
to form a continuous path between points A and Z?

I have seen:

   - *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the
   network layer over a physical fiber connection. This definition of circuit
   would include the dark fiber path, the transmitters and receivers and logic
   making up the data and network layers.]
   - *fiber loop *[ Does a loop define an electrical circuit with two
   physically separate positive and negative strands? In that case, is this a
   Bellhead remnant? ]

I am particularly interested in last mile systems, but I don't see any
reason that the term wouldn't be the same in the middle mile.

thanks,
Fletcher

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Fiber to the home specialists/consultants?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Since two asked: Tilson <http://www.tilsontech.com/>


On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Jeremy Austin <jhaus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ditto.
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM Daniel Rohan <dro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me at a firm that does or consults on FTTH from a
> > technical *and* business perspective?
> >
> > Off-list responses would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dan
> >
>



-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: FTTP Advice, Michigan and other areas

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Jared;

What you are trying to do is quite achievable, but a huge topic worthy of a
book, not an email post. Also, situations vary significantly between states
due to incumbents, regulatory regimes, and level of state support. NANOG is
a bad place to get advice about this topic. There are many other venues
with literally thousands of other organizations/groups/companies on the
same path as you. I would start from the FTTH Council, Next Century Cities,
Institute for Local Self-Reliance and work out from there.


On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> I’m looking for some advice/input from people either public or private
> about woes building fiber to reach people outside the footprints of the
> existing incumbents.
>
> There is a group of people looking to organize private fiber to reach
> areas that are unserved.
>
> There’s been recent local people doing this like Lightspeed (Lansing) and
> the Vergennes Broadband folks.
>
> When it come to private right of way, public right of way use, swaps, pole
> attach and other things, any best practices people can share either in
> public or private?
>
> TL;DR background for those interested:
>
> Many wireless ISPs are finding it harder to locate equipment or
> utilize frequencies based on interference or congestion.  Advanced
> encodings like 16-QAM that are seen in 802.11ac hardware also introduce
> latencies that are not ideal.  The FCC is also making it harder for
> equipment to be qualified in this space, in some cases rightly so due to
> out of band emissions or just adjacent frequency noise.  The revisions of
> rules in 5Ghz are helpful, but the cellular industry is also looking to
> exploit these frequencies to solve indoor coverage.
>
> There are two groups I’m trying to assist, a local cooperative
> which is trying to just own the fiber and let providers gain access and
> some WISPs that are looking to improve service due to increase customer
> demand.
>
> Getting service on the fiber is “easy” once it’s there, but
> gaining access or building it is the part I’m looking for insights in.
>
> - Jared
>
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 Looks to me that there are issues of interest here.


 http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history/


This isn't a very good article.

At best, it is a set of unsubstantiated claims regarding events of
undefined correlation. Change in regulation Y led to less investment in
[bad sector] and more investment in [good sector]. Really? Details of how
much more? How much less? Why was this better? How did you measure that?
There are only vague figures without attribution and no establishment of
causal link. The assumption is just made that investment decisions are made
for regulatory reasons. This is particularly suspect because, as you may
recall, there were other things going on in that period. Like the Internet
Bubble.

The timeline of events is screwed with. He uses the period between 1996 and
2000, when the Internet Bubble popped, and compares it to 1996 to 2005,
when Powell/Martin did away with pro-competitive regulation. Yes, during
the bubble, which ended in 2000, there was a huge investment in fiber, but
it is a difficult argument to make that the investment was because of
regulation since the regulatory change happened in 2005. If it was the
regulatory change, why didn't investment happen during the missing five
years? Since it is a widely held thesis that the fiber bubble popped
because of a huge oversupply of dark fiber, why is that not directly
addressed.

Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband, but again that
market wasn't technologically developed yet in say, 1999. Further, how can
you focus only the rate of change in cable investment without considering
the rate of change in DSL?

Claiming the Internet bubble popped because of a change in telco regulatory
regime in the US is ridiculous, as is ignoring the effect of underlying
technology on the appearance and disappearance of markets. Regulators,
lawyers and politicians need to get over themselves and have a measured
perspective on their importance.

The argument that killing competition from the CLECs led to more investment
and a better network is a difficult one to make. Particularly during a
period where the US's network lost is speed/quality advantage compared to
other advanced countries. There is a strong set of opinions that killing
CLEC competition was retardant on network speed/quality growth. I don't see
how articles like this are going to change minds.

Disclaimer: I am a computer scientist. In general, I find public policy
arguments deeply annoying because they have flaws similar to the above.

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Symmetry, DSL, and all that

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Not a very informative discussion.

Points of fact...

From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4:

   1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers.
   2.  Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed
   to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier.

From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now
symmetric.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/

ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The
original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver
video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric.





-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: I am about to inherit 26 miles of dark fiber. What do I do with it?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

OutSide Plant design(OSP) is a specialized field worthy of significant
study. The consequences of getting a OSP design wrong are much harder to
fix than getting a network design wrong. You are designing for *20 years*.
If you are at the point of asking a mailing list NANOG, which, um, is not
focused on OSP expertise, it is a really, really good idea to concentrate
on hiring the best consultant.

I have viewed this train wreck too many times.


On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:



 --- fkitt...@gwi.net wrote:
 From: Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net

 The below is a really sad story. Condolences on the coming trainwreck. I
 hope you get someone on staff or on consult that understands outside plant
 architecture, because it is much more important and complex topic than you
 seem to realize.
 -


 Help guide and build knowledge instead of publicly beat down.

 scott




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: I am about to inherit 26 miles of dark fiber. What do I do with it?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

 jargon.
 
  I should be fun... :)
 
  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet  Telecom
 
 
  - Original Message -
   From: Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org
   To: nanog@nanog.org
   Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:18:15 PM
   Subject: I am about to inherit 26 miles of dark fiber. What do I do
 with
  it?
  
   All:
  
   A job opportunity just came my way to work with 26 miles of dark fiber
  in and
   around a city in Texas.
  
   The intent is for me to deliver internet and private network services
 to
   business customers in this area.
  
   I relish the thought of starting from scratch to build a network right
  from
   the start instead of inheriting and fixing someone else's mess.
  
   That being said, what suggestions does the group have for building a
 new
   network using existing dark fiber?
  
   MPLS backbone?  Like all businesses these days, I will likely have to
  build
   the lit backbone as I add customers. So how would you recommend scaling
  the
   network?
  
   I have six strands of SMF that connect within municipal facilities.
 Each
  new
   customer will be a new build out from the nearest point. Because of
  having
   only six strands, I don't anticipate selling dark fiber. I believe I
  need to
   conserve fibers so that it would be lit services that I offer to
  customers.
  
   I would like to offer speeds up to 10 GB.
  
   Thoughts are appreciated!
  
   Sincerely,
  
   Lorell Hathcock
 




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: I am about to inherit 26 miles of dark fiber. What do I do with it?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Goodwill != nice.  Goodwill is respect, honesty and a genuine concern
for a positive outcome. nice is frequently concentrating more on avoiding
conflict than on a good outcome. I care more than most about the outcome
than most because I will share your failure.  I will be sitting on some
panel having to explain why the failure of your town's system isn't
indicative of the failure of all municipal broadband, just as I now have to
explain Provo, UT, Burlington, VT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/technology/in-rural-america-challenging-a-roadblock-to-high-speed-internet.html?hpwrref=technologyaction=clickpgtype=Homepagemodule=well-regionregion=bottom-wellWT.nav=bottom-well_r=0Monticello,
Minn; and Dunnellon and Quincy, Fla
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/technology/in-rural-america-challenging-a-roadblock-to-high-speed-internet.html?hpwrref=technologyaction=clickpgtype=Homepagemodule=well-regionregion=bottom-wellWT.nav=bottom-well_r=0
.

Patrick Darden's comments on getting good legal advice and security design
are great points. Municipal broadband is governed by federal, state and
municipal laws. The last two vary widely... Fiber ownership, overlash
rights, additional pole attachment.  Stay in telecommunications space and
out of electrical space if you can.

Join the FTTH Council; it is very cheap for what you get. The resources
available to members are extensive; concentrate on the public policy and
business resources (disclaimer: I speak at their conferences on financing).
www.muninetworks.org is another, though it comes with a perspective.

Any technical advice from this forum is suspect because not enough has been
shared about the goals of the project to make any technical choices.
However, there are some general technical goals that all projects should
examine, if only to discard them:

1) Expandability: We are in the early days of gigabit fiber networks and
your network should last at least 20 years. Design in such a way that your
network can grow significantly. Issues include fiber count, connection
architecture, slack loops for many modifications. If you are building a
business only network, think through how it would be expanded to all
residential customers at a later date. By definition infrastructure is a
shared resource and the more users the greater the value and the lower cost
per user.  Plan to share any infrastructure you design with everyone.

2) Flexibility: don't assume today's uses will be tomorrow's uses. Can you
switch from passive to active if that is required later? You inherited a
fiber plant that I bet you are going to find is insufficient to the task.
Learn from that and don't pass on the same mess to later generations.

3) Open access, preferably dark fiber. Long discussion, but I think there
is a compelling case that the best systems are usually open access dark
fiber. See flexibility and expandability above and network
consolidation below.

4) Plan for network consolidation. Every other network built in the past
has gone through a network consolidation phase: telegraph, railroads,
electrical, telephone, cable. The network economies of scale are so
enormous that no single, small network can match them. Plan for that future
and use a standard OSP design that matches the networks around you.


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net
wrote:


 Gah!

 Municipal fiber networks can be total failures or the best investment a
 community can make. It all depends on the implementation.

 There are eight steps one needs to get right: 1) public policy goals, 2)
 technical goals meet the public policy goals, 3) survey community
 demographics and existing network assets, 4) build community consensus, 5)
 select the right business plan and obtain funding, 6) technical design of
 OSP and operating structure, 7) RFI/RFP, 8)select EPC vendors and
 fanatically oversee construction.

 Steps 1-5 are the most important and the level of success will depend on
 the quality of their implementation. If a half-assed job is done at any
 step, the outcome will not be good.  This discussion has been focused on
 step 6: technical design. It is impossible to do a good technical design if
 you don't understand the problem you are trying to solve.

 There are vast differences between different municipalities public policy
 goals and business plans. It doesn't make sense to copy Chattanooga's
 implementation because their situation is different than yours (you have an
 existing fiber network, which is always a warning sign. They are serving
 all residents and businesses and you imply you are focused on businesses.)

 Focus on developing a deep understanding of what problem the city leaders
 are trying to solve, then figure out how to hire a competent OSP design
 person and make them do a good job. This is a hard task in and of itself.

 The failure of one municipal broadband system reflects badly on all
 municipal broadband systems. Good luck.



 On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Re: I am about to inherit 26 miles of dark fiber. What do I do with it?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

The below is a really sad story. Condolences on the coming trainwreck. I
hope you get someone on staff or on consult that understands outside plant
architecture, because it is much more important and complex topic than you
seem to realize.


On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org wrote:

 All:

 A job opportunity just came my way to work with 26 miles of dark fiber in
 and around a city in Texas.

 The intent is for me to deliver internet and private network services to
 business customers in this area.

 I relish the thought of starting from scratch to build a network right
 from the start instead of inheriting and fixing someone else's mess.

 That being said, what suggestions does the group have for building a new
 network using existing dark fiber?

 MPLS backbone?  Like all businesses these days, I will likely have to
 build the lit backbone as I add customers. So how would you recommend
 scaling the network?

 I have six strands of SMF that connect within municipal facilities. Each
 new customer will be a new build out from the nearest point. Because of
 having only six strands, I don't anticipate selling dark fiber. I believe I
 need to conserve fibers so that it would be lit services that I offer to
 customers.

 I would like to offer speeds up to 10 GB.

 Thoughts are appreciated!

 Sincerely,

 Lorell Hathcock




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: BGP Session

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

 When did the NANOG list become freeconsulting.org?

 Owen


1996


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural
Broadband Experiments.  I don't think this needs translation, but please
read carefully.

*2.*
We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage
participation in

the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including
competitive local exchange
carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs,
State and regional authorities,
Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49
 We were encouraged to see the
diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties.
Of the more than 1,000
expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not
currently ETCs, including electric
utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments.
*22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they
initially submit their
formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but
that they must obtain ETC
designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award.
 As stated in the Tech
Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90
days of the public notice
announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51
 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the
Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe
will be considered in default
and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural
broadband experiment. Any funding that
is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other
applicants. We conclude this is necessary
so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner.
However, a waiver of this
deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that
it has engaged in good faith to
obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day
timeframe.[52]
*23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a
presumption
that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected
participant within a specified period of
time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission
will address the ETC
application.   Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54
 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a
state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may
request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section
214(e)(6).55
 Although we are
confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance
broadband, and we expect states to
expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest
in providing voice and
broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also
recognize the need to adopt
measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in
situations where there is a lack of
action by the state.
==
 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit
their ETC applications to the relevant
jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice
announcing winning bids, and will presume an
entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15
days of release of the public notice. A
waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an
entity has an ETC application pending with
a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC
application will occur after the 90-day
window.



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:

 I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take
 to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd
 need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned
 telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically
 support over the top VoIP so that we can help our customers get
 inexpensive
 telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.)

 --Brett Glass


 At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote:

  I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
 riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
 internet services...pretty much just for LECs.
 Thank You
 Bob Evans
 CTO





-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Fletcher Kittredge]

I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself.   Along with
everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of
becoming an ETC.   It is not onerous.   Please stop.   You are giving rural
ISPs a bad reputation.


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:

 At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:

  Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
 as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?


 It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why.
 The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications
 Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a
 telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations,
 requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to
 report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification
 that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to
 this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund.

 The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will
 fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see

 http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order

 As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to
 overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already
 have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if
 they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any
 service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires
 participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that
 they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance.

 All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those
 whom they cannot regulate.

 IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded.

 --Brett Glass






-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: World Cup Streaming

[Fletcher Kittredge]

There are three reasons to expect US viewing will be significantly higher
than in World Cups past:

   1. The WC will be in the same time zone as most of the US viewing
   audience;
   2. While the USA team will not win, they are good enough they may make
   multiple rounds.
   3. British (English) humor is popular in the US.   Very four years, the
   Three Lions comedy troupe put on a performance that has them rolling in
   the aisles.  With cult performers Rooney, Gerrard, Welbeck, and Hart,
   hijinks will ensue and fun will be had by all![1]

1. Except the English, who will be bitter and depressed.  But they are
happiest being bitter and depressed.


On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sports events have their rights sold on per country basis; this leads to
 some fragmentation of those numbers as network X has the rights for country
 1, network Y for country 2, and they account their numbers separate even if
 they use the same CDN.

 Considering Soccer (or Football as we non-US call it) is not so popular in
 the US, my guess (not an estimate) is for traffic levels for the US network
 that carries the World Cup online to not be as high as Summer and/or Winter
 Olympics.

 What we have pretty good educated estimates is for 2014 World Cup streaming
 to Brazil to be higher in volume than what was seen in the Olympics
 streaming to the US.

 Rubens







 On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org
 wrote:

  Hey folks
 
  One part of capacity planning that is always challenging at times with
  various providers I have worked with is determining the traffic levels
  required for upcoming events such as World Cup.  Obviously there is
  speculation and it varies dependent on the provider, their geography, and
  size of eyeball/downstream eyeball customers.
 
  Is there any resources out there other than news articles that provide
 for
  a
  reasonable estimation as to how much impact World Cup will have for
  example?
  I’ve heard offline from some folks that put World Cup at greater traffic
  levels than the recent Olympics for example but have no way to know if
 that
  is a pure guess or an educated estimate.
 
  I am assuming that the CDN’s involved have some pretty accurate ideas on
  what to expect but in the past I have not been able to get feedback from
  them with any specific estimations.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Paul
 
 
 
 




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: SIP on FTTH systems

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:

 Quick question:

 In the USA,  do CLECs have access to homes served only by FTTH ? If so,
 how it is accomplisehd ?


In practice CLECs do not have access.   The TR order of the last decade
mandated that access via FTTH was not a section 251 requirement under the
Telco Act of 1996 except for a 64kbs stream which in theory could be used
for voice.  However, I believe there has been no widescale use of that
feature because it is uneconomical compared to over-the-top VoIP.

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Scott;

I apologize.   You could very well sincerely not realize you are wrong.
Obviously, erroneous thinking is not the same as making things up.

However, it is not good that bad information is out there and it should be
corrected.First you refer to them as dry copper or dry pair which
has no regulatory meaning.   I don't know if using the wrong term is part
of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them.   The proper term is
Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops.  UNEs are the elements the
ILECs are required to sell to CLECs.  There are a variety of different
types of UNE loops.   The most accurate way to identify them is probably
referring to an ILEC wholesale tariff filed on a state-by-state basis.
The FCC defines Section 251 requirements, but individual state PUCs
administer the tariffs for their locations.

Second, going to any document by the NTCA, an advocacy organization, for
information on this topic is a mistake for obvious bias reasons.   The
controlling documents are the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act),
the FCC's Triennial Review Order[s](TRO), various ILEC tariffs and the
individual InterConnection Agreements(ICA) between ILECs and CLECs.   Under
the Telco Act, UNE loops are a Section 251 requirement.The FCC has
primary responsibility for administering Section 251 requirements and the
FCC's rules for doing so are put forth in the TROs.   The last TROs were
released in 2004, so that would be the last time the rules changed as you
put it.   So there has not been a recent change in the rules resulting in
residential CLEC demise.

Third, it is true that an ILEC is not required to add capacity.   However,
it is hard for me to believe anyone would say with a straight face that any
residential CLECs went out of business primarily because ILECs are not
required to add copper.   In a period where there is steady erosion of
landlines resulting in a lot of unused copper loops, lack of copper loops
is a small issue.   Some residential CLECs went out of business because
they had broken business models.   Some residential CLECs became successful
business CLECs as well, check out Earthlink (NASDAQ: ELNK).   The
controlling issues are more financial than regulatory.   We have had the
same regulatory regime for almost a decade.

Any prudent DSL provider, ILEC or CLEC, should have plans for a transition
to copper, but the copper network still has useful life in it for
residential CLECs as well as other markets.

Fletcher


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

 Fletcher,

 Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ making stuff
 up.  In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you
 cannot order dry pairs.  This has been because of a combination of relaxed
 rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and
 because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were
 used up.


 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.netwrote:


 In this particular post, your making stuff up.   There are still
 residential focused CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs)
 is not more difficult than in the past.   The rules haven't changed.

 What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more
 lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation
 with residential getting more difficult.   We used to be 75%/25%
 residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the
 *rapid* growth of the business market.

 regards,
 Fletcher

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

 Joe,

 I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs
 are
 still generally available.  I apologize for not making it clear that my
 comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly
 impossible
 to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the
 residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any
 residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something
 about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.


 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:

 
  On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 
   Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
 
  Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are
  always wrong, no doubt including this one.
 
 
  Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)




 --
 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum
 (678) 507-5000
 
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 




 --
 Fletcher Kittredge
 GWI
 8 Pomerleau Street
 Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
 207-602-1134




 --
 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum
 (678) 507-5000
 
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 




-- 
Fletcher

Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Jean-Francois;

The only regulatory regime I am familiar with is the US and the original
poster specifically specified the US regime.

In the US, only CLECs have the right to order UNEs.   Many ISPs became
CLECs for that reason.  In the states in which we operate, becoming a CLEC
is a minimal burden.   Being a CLEC has the added advantage of access to
utility poles.

regards,
Fletcher


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:

 On 13-02-04 14:57, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:

  of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them.   The proper term is
  Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops.

 The Bell Canada tariff on ADSL acess (5410) uses the following
 terminology: (GAS = wholesale DSL service operated by incumbent telco
 that provides PPPoE (there are some variations that provide ethernet
 connection) between end users and independent ISPs)

 ##
 (h) GAS Access will only be provisioned over Company provided primary
 exchange service, unbundled local loops used to provide CLEC primary
 exchange service, or dry loops.
 ##

 Dry Loop refers to a local loop that has no phone service attached to
 it (either telco or CLEC) but has the telco's wholesale DSL service.
 As I recall, it is tariffed separatly and differently from unbundled
 local loops. (If an ISP has its own DSLAM, it would need an unbundled
 local loop since it isn't buying the wholesale DSL service from Bell).


 In the USA, is access to the last mile copper mandated only for CLECs or
 can a company that is not a CLEC (aka: an ISP) also get access to the
 copper between CO and homes ?





-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.comwrote:

 Fletcher:

 Many rural LECs are homerunning their fiber back to the CO, such that the
 optical splitters are only in the CO.  It gives them one management point,
 the highest possible efficiency (you can maximize any every splitter and
 therefore PON) and a pathway to ActiveE.


Frank;

That is the architecture I am familar with.   I would like to get a sense
of how wide-spread its adoption is.

regards,
Fletcher
-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband

[Fletcher Kittredge]

In this particular post, your making stuff up.   There are still
residential focused CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs)
is not more difficult than in the past.   The rules haven't changed.

What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more
lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation
with residential getting more difficult.   We used to be 75%/25%
residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the
*rapid* growth of the business market.

regards,
Fletcher

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

 Joe,

 I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are
 still generally available.  I apologize for not making it clear that my
 comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible
 to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the
 residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any
 residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something
 about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.


 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:

 
  On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 
   Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
 
  Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are
  always wrong, no doubt including this one.
 
 
  Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)




 --
 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum
 (678) 507-5000
 
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

 If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you
 can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided
 by $PROVIDER_1 and cross connect all of $PROVIDER_2's customers to
 a splitter provided by $PROVIDER_2, etc.

 If the splitter is out in the neighborhood, then $PROVIDER_1 and
 $PROVIDER_2
 and... all need to build out to every neighborhood.

 If you have the splitter next to the PON gear instead of next to the
 subscribers,
 then you remove the relevance of the inability to connect a splitter to
 multiple
 OLTs. The splitter becomes the provider interface to the open fiber plant


Owen;

Interesting.   Do you then lose the cost advantage because you need home
run fiber back to the MMR?   Do you have examples of plants built with this
architecture (I know of one such plant, but I am hoping you will turn up
more examples.)

regards,
Fletcher
-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Muni Fiber

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Charles;

Wouldn't Federal and State laws preempt Municipal law in this area?

I agree YANAL.

regards,
Fletcher

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Charles Gucker cguc...@onesc.net wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
  I don't think a muni can prevent the ILEC from installing fiber in their
 RoW

 First off, IANAL, Secondly, I've had a reasonable amount of experience
 with Village and Municipal Law.In short, the statement above is
 incorrect, in so much that the RoW is not that of the ILEC, but rather
 the ILEC's ability to use the Muni's RoW.So, if the Municipality
 wanted to prevent the ILEC, or any company with RoW use rights, they
 certainly can. Unfortunately, a lot of the terms of the
 arrangement between the Municipalities and Telco's were written back
 in the 20's and 30's.So, the restriction would have to be put
 into terms of that agreement.

 But in the end, it's up to the Municipality to set the guidelines (as
 with any local law) within the borders of their Municipality.

 charles




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Software-based Border Router

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Another big problem for Linux/Unix-based routers of this size/cost is
upgrade-ability.   If you need to add cards, you are going to have to bring
the router down for extended periods.   Likewise, a software upgrade can be
a bigger deal than on a purpose designed router.   If a router is mission
critical, Linux/Unixed-based has issues over extended periods.

regards,
Fletcher

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:35 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
 nccari...@stluke.com.ph wrote:
  Thank you for the prompt response.  Just to clarify my previous
  post, I was actually referring to Linux/Unix-based routers.
  We've been considering this solution because presently we
  don't have any budget for equipment acquisition this year.

 What's your time worth?

 Quagga on Linux is a fine software, but messing with the
 idiosyncrasies is far more time consuming than buying a Cisco 2811,
 adding enough RAM to handle BGP, configuring it once and forgetting
 about it.

 Also bear in mind that while your ISP's engineers can help you
 configure your Cisco router, Quagga is a mystery to them. You can
 still get help... but not from someone who also knows how the ISP's
 network is configured.

 This is not a problem if you have lots of experience with BGP routing. Do
 you?

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin



 --
 William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/
 Falls Church, VA 22042-3004




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Randy;

Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
last mile?   Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly
multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units?
Any thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to
learn about the Japanese broadband experience?

thanks!
Fletcher


On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

  At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
  physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United
 States
  is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking
 about.
  The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
  how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche
 success
  and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
  drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
  hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
  arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that
 will
  enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack
 of
  a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
  infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
  own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
  importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
  priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
  understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a
 bit
  so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.

 life can be simple.  i moved to a first world country, japan.  $35/mo
 for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a
 couple of laptops.

 hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail.

 randy




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Thanks for the pointers, Mikael.  unfortunately, my Swedish is not much
better than my Japanese...  But it is a good start and I am sure I will find
some sort of English description somewhere.

I should have been a bit more explicit in my question:   I am not concerned
on the routing of the last mile, sewer, trenching, etc.   That is a solved
problem for these projects.   The big questions for me is PON vs active and,
if PON, what are the details:   prisms in the CO vs prisms in the field,
which xPON to use, etc.   How is splicing and interconnection done, etc.

thanks!
Fletcher

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:

 On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:

  Pricing aside, do you feel the Japanese have a good architecture for the
 last mile?  Would it adapt well from an environment that is mostly
 multi-dwelling units (MDU) to one which is mostly single-dwelling units? Any
 thoughts on good places to start for an english language speaker to learn
 about the Japanese broadband experience?


 You might look into what's being done in Sweden then, here there are
 municipality networks who dig up the streets and does fiber to the
 individual house in suburbia (you have to trench your own land though, 4dm
 deep, 1-2dm wide, they only dig in the street put down the pipe in your
 trench).

 Common cost for the house owner to get this done is in the 2-4kUSD range
 per house, then you can choose between multiple ISPs to purchase your bw
 from. 100/100 (symmetric speed) seems to cost 40 USD per month, 10/10 is
 5-10 USD/month cheaper.

 I've been trying to run the text thru google translate, but the web magic
 seems to prohibit this from working.

 If someone can figure it out better than me, the URL is here (in swedish):

 http://www.sollentunaenergi.se/bredband/ansl_villor.asp


 --
 Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

transcievers/amplifiers for 150 km fiber run

[Fletcher Kittredge]

We are looking to light a two strand fiber link of about 95 miles (or
150km).   It would be worth a lot to us not to have repeaters.   We are
hoping for Gigabit Ethernet.   Sonet is possible but a less attractive
solution.  Are there options for this sort of distance?   The longest
current link we have is about 65 miles.  I understand the transmission
characteristics of the fiber will effect distance of transmission.

regards,
Fletcher

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: transcievers/amplifiers for 150 km fiber run

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Thanks to all that replied.   A bit more background:   By regulation, the
local ILEC is required to supply us with dark fiber where available.   They
have taken the regulatory stance that it is not technically possible to use
dark fiber runs of more than 60 miles (prior, their regulatory stance was
runs of more than twenty miles were not technically feasible.)  Our
counter-argument has been that we have existing fiber runs of 63 miles and
59 miles that work well without special equipment.   We are now arguing
about a particular fiber run in rural Maine of about 91 miles.   Our
position is it is technically feasible, depending on fiber characteristics,
to light 91 miles of fiber.  Their position is that runs of more than 60
miles are not feasible.   I was hoping to bolster our argument by pointing
to data sheets of optical transcievers rated up to 150 km.  Then, after we
get the fiber, I was hoping to buy said equipment.

regards,
Fletcher

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Fletcher Kittredge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 We are looking to light a two strand fiber link of about 95 miles (or
 150km).   It would be worth a lot to us not to have repeaters.   We are
 hoping for Gigabit Ethernet.   Sonet is possible but a less attractive
 solution.  Are there options for this sort of distance?   The longest
 current link we have is about 65 miles.  I understand the transmission
 characteristics of the fiber will effect distance of transmission.

 regards,
 Fletcher

 --
 Fletcher Kittredge
 GWI
 8 Pomerleau Street
 Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
 207-602-1134




-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134