----- Original Message -----
From: "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome@ceriz.fr>
Le 29/01/2013 18:54, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller players play.
Please let me present the french regulatory rules about that. It has been an ongoing debate for a few years and is now almost stable.
[ ... ]
Infrastructure operators can also provide a L2 service but are still required to offer L1 service to any willing ISP. In such case, collocation space in street cabinets (or the ability to install their own side by side with passive cabinets) is required.
This model has been choosed because it lets both network types be deployed : either point to multipoint (GePON) or point to point is possible on any of these fiber networks, thanks to the local-loop (between residences and MMRs) beeing point to point only.
Smaller ISPs usually go for L2 services, provided by the infrastructure operator or another ISP already present on site. But some tends to stick to L1 service and deply their own eqipments for many reasons.
Hmmm. Sounds familiar, Jerome. :-) How is it working out in practice, since it's within about 10% of what I proposed to do? Are there any public numbers we can look at? 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