Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
Still, the power budget improvements by not going with a single strand
active ethernet solution (which were another suggested technology and
has actually been deployed by some muni PON folks like Clarkesville,
TN) are huge. Imagine a 24 port switch that
- Original Message -
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
Hmm. the optics don't have auto power control?
Auto power control would apply to launch levels for the light;
assuming a launch level of -3 dBm and lasers that were only 1 percent
efficient (combination of spec max
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org writes:
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
- Original Message -
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
Data point, which makes the rest of this discussion moot:
Since telcos are historically myopic and don't build (much) extra
fiber into their plant to support future technologies, the only use
for existing fiber in the
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
- 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 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
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
On 1/30/2013 5:03 PM, John Levine wrote:
The muni power companies around here provide service every bit as good
as NYSEG, the private power company, at literally half the price.
The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep
the price lower.
municipal utilities:
-
The muni providers have a bunch of cost advantages that help them keep the
price lower.
Yes, but:
A) NYSEG customers are still paying off boondoggles due to incompetent
current and former management that have nothing to do with their
for-profit status
B) So what? The customers get better
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
municipal utilities:
- sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads, etc...
Someone earlier mentioned being able to have millions of fibers coming
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:33:35AM -0600, Jason Baugher
wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays,
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads, etc...
Someone earlier mentioned being
Oh, so all the fault belongs to the financial institutions, and there is no
corruption within the government agencies themselves. Right.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:58 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can
On 1/30/13 8:05 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
Oh, so all the fault belongs to the financial institutions, and there is no
corruption within the government agencies themselves. Right.
More like it's turtles all the way down.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:58 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Ah, I said nothing about involving $BigTelcoCableCo. There are smaller
companies that will do these projects, as long as they make business sense.
Muni's can do things to make it more attractive, such as not charging for
right-of-way, property tax incentives, etc... There's nothing wrong with
the
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads,
: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:49:38 PM
Subject: Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I
On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:33:35AM -0600, Jason Baugher
wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much
On 13-01-30 15:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
1.They are not allowed to sell L3+ services.
2.They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider.
3.They must sell their L1/L2 services to any L3+ service provider on
equal terms.
This is the problem we have in
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 13-01-30 15:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
1. They are not allowed to sell L3+ services.
2. They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider.
3. They must sell their L1/L2 services to
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
assumption by most that a government entity would ...
could we agree that contract management is a problem inherent and not
abandon an engineering discussion, which includes economics, to
The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
assumption by most that a government entity would do a good job as a
layer-1 or -2 provider and would be more efficient than a private company.
Governments, including municipalities, are notorious for corruption, fraud,
waste - you
Sorry Owen, but I live in Illinois. Government corruption is a way of life
here.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen
DeLong wrote:
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
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 generator
to work. It should not need
- Original Message -
From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
There is much talk of how many fibers can fit in a duct, can be brought
into a colo space, etc... I haven't seen much mention of how much space the
termination in the colo would take, such as splice trays, bulkheads,
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
To put that in patch panel racks, 10,368 households * 6 fibers per
house (3 pair) / 864 per rack = 72 racks of patch panels. Using a
relatively generous for 2-post patch panels 20sq feet per rack it
would be 1,440 sq feet of
- Original Message -
From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
right-of-way, property tax incentives, etc... There's nothing wrong
with
the concept of a single entity building out the infrastructure for
others
to lease on a wholesale basis, I just don't think that entity should
be
- Original Message -
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
(C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a firewall of
protection against
On 1/29/2013 7:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
(C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
provides such protections... it becomes
On 1/29/2013 10:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
(C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a firewall of
- Original Message -
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a
proper court
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the
- Original Message -
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
(Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the
resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some
other location of theirs}. Best of both worlds.)
Right, and a public-private
On 01/29/13 12:02, Jay Ashworth allegedly wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
then the ISP typically ONLY
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
supporting muni network ownership -- or at least a
not-for-profit entity.
I tried to start one a decade ago, but a lawsuit was
threatened by the incumbent cable provider (MediaOne in
those days) who claimed an exclusive right. Since then
the
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the public-can't rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francisco,
- Original Message -
From: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net
i'm also indifferent to the leo-in-the-noc rationale, as the
separation is presently somewhat fictive and overzealous prosecutions
are the norm.
So, you're saying muni transport is bad because there's *less*
ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね
勘違いしてました。
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept
of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I
want to move there! :)
-Zach
2013/1/29 Masatoshi Enomoto masatosh...@is.naist.jp:
ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね
勘違いしてました。
--
Zach Giles
On 13-01-29 10:59, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good
counter-argument I've seen,
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
Is last mile infrastructure really considered internet ? If a GPON
system operates as layer 2, it provides no internet connectivity, no IP
routing and would/should not implement any IP use policies such as
See, the Comcast's and ATT of the world are right that governments
shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
should be available.
It has
- Original Message -
From: Elle Plato techg...@gmail.com
[ attribution lost ]
See, the Comcast's and ATT of the world are right that governments
shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
There's a really simple solution to this problem...
Let the muni provide L1/L2 network, and make sure that your L3 usage is
entirely run over encrypted channels between you and your (non-muni)
L3 service provider.
At that point, sure, the muni can see that you sent a lot of packets full of
On Jan 29, 2013, at 09:05 , Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the
On 13-01-29 15:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
If you're at layer 1, and arguably at layer 2, then move-add-change on
physical patches / VLAN assignments is all you would need to log, since you
don't actually touch real traffic.
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Zachary Giles
wrote:
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept
of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I
want to move there! :)
I don't know any in the US that have the
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
cable vaults. Even with fiber, a 10,000 strand bundle is not small.
It's also a lot more expensive to pull in 10,000 strands from a few
blocks
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 generator
to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
requires PM, etc.
This is not possible in a
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
cable vaults. Even with fiber, a 10,000 strand bundle is not small.
It's
That's why I think rather than having the muni run colo (which may
fill), they should just allow providers to drop in their own fiber
cables, and run a fiber patch only room. There could then be hundreds
of private colo providers in a 1km radius of the fiber MMR, generating
lots of
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 generator
to work. It should not need
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:36 , George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
60 matches
Mail list logo
