----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality?
I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access.
What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X.
Well, this is a place where Road Runner already *being* built in HFC is a *feature* to me; I'm not going to yank their franchise agreement.
The normal behaviour should be: "we'll gladly connect to the municipal system".
Are there any US examples of that actually happening?
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. 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