Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just copper services brought into the home.
Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the penetration.
What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it. *This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of. No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.
I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution shouldn't do this.
Hopefully that explains my concern.
As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2 per media type (rarely even more than 1).
I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.
However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.
Sure.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with any additional technologies anywhere.
Yup; I've been saying that right along. That's why I'd prefer to do the install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it. Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome. That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it through on order.
If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should avoid any blurring of the lines.
I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3 service would. Had I misunderstood you? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just copper services brought into the home.
Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the penetration.
What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.
Why? Why can't it be drop cable, or, require the technician to place the patch cord in appropriate innerduct to protect it?
If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it.
I disagree. It could be either a connectorized drop cable or a patch cord. If it's a patch cord, you could require appropriate innerduct from the external jackbox to the interior termination point.
*This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of.
So you're afraid of installers handling fiber patch cords, or, you're afraid of the patch cords not holding up after installed, or what?
No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.
Given that set of requirements, I would opt for the interior jack box. The muni should not be providing ONTs as part of it's L1 service and their L1 service should be the same product for everyone, whether it's Muni L2, Muni L3+L2, or any other service provider or set of providers doing the L2, L3, etc. There should be no active components in the muni L1 product.
I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution shouldn't do this.
Hopefully that explains my concern.
I think I understand your concern. I'm not sure I agree with it.
As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2 per media type (rarely even more than 1).
I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.
But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.
You should absolutely expect L1 providers. The L2 and/or L3 services should be operated strictly as the back-up provider of last resort and/or to keep the other providers honest.
However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular 1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.
Sure.
In case I wasn't clear... Everything beyond the jack box counts as IW (IF?) from my perspective.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with any additional technologies anywhere.
Yup; I've been saying that right along. That's why I'd prefer to do the install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.
Sure, I can understand that. The problem is when you get into the business of doing interior terminations on customer premises that aren't actually ordering service at this time, you open yourself up to a host of installation difficulties and increased costs. That's why I think the better solution is an exterior patch box with a requirement that all patches into the box be brought out inside innerduct.
Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.
That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it through on order.
How do you propose to do your validation tests against fiber coiled in a box?
If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should avoid any blurring of the lines.
I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3 service would.
I'm not sure whether offering L2 would cause competitive pressure the way L3 would, but, I do think that there is a lot of benefit and I'm becoming more convinced by some of the other arguments that clean layer separation at L1 is well worth while.
Had I misunderstood you?
My opinion is evolving with the discussion. I was wishy washy about L2 before. I'm becoming more convinced that even if you offer it, it should have clean separation. In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509 into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate SFP. Owen
In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509 into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate SFP.
Owen
Just so you know, this isn't viable, at least not to scale. You can on the other hand use Cisco's ME line to do this even less expensively (so long as you weren't planning on buying used 6509). -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 11-Feb-13 22:33, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it. *This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of.
OTOH, that will be the L2+ providers' problem, and the _level_ of problems will be inversely proportional to how well they train/pay their field staff/contractors. IOW, the incentives are properly aligned with the desired behavior. If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU, as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and easy access for both initial installation and for later troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.
No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.
IMHO, both of those options are unacceptable, for different reasons.
That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it through on order.
Once the tail is "poked through", though, you no longer have an exterior test point that is easily accessed. If the L2 and L1 providers are arguing over whose fault a problem is, they not only have to both show up at the same time, they also have to arrange for the property owner (or their agent) to be present as well to let them inside to continue their testing and bickering. That won't end well for either party. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU, as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and easy access for both initial installation and for later troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.
Stephen, I'd say this is much less clean in my experience than you're describing. In fact, I'd say that operationally its downright problematic in many territories and not improving. So if this is the model if how it should be done I think we have a long way to go before doing it in a FTTx world is remotely economical. Now, this isn't a problem in all territories or operators but it is common as dirt.
-- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Jay Ashworth -
Owen DeLong -
Scott Helms -
Stephen Sprunk