----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@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 colo space to house all of the patch panels to homes.
Oh, I hope to ghod we can get higher density that that.
Now, providers coming in would need a similar amount of fiber, so basically double that amount. There would also need to be some room for growth. Were I sizing a physical colo for this town I would build a 5,000 square foot space designed to take ~250 fiber racks. That would handle today's needs (< 150 racks) and provide years of growth.
5000ft a fair amount of space. Of course, I could always double the height and put roller ladders in; this is an MDF; the MAC rate should be relatively low.
Note also that the room is 100% patch panels and fiber, no electronics.
Well, your room is. :-)
There would be no need for chillers and generators and similar equipment. No need for raised floor, or a DC power plant. The sole difficult part would be fiber patch management, a rather elaborate overhead tray system would be required.
That's another advantage of layer 2: you can use short patches to an intra-rack termination switch, since you can handle all the MAC at VLAN level, with the exception of those clients who actually *want* Layer 1, to whom you can still provide it.
There is almost nothing to bid out here in my model. Today when a new subdivision is built the builder contracts out all of the work to the telco/cable-co specifications. That would continue to be the case with fiber. The muni would contract out running the main trunk lines to each neighborhood, and the initial building of the MMR space. Once that is done the ongoing effort is a man or two that can do patching and testing in the MMR, and occasionally contracting out repair work when fiber is cut.
And again, you're greenfield, and I'm not. :-)
The real win here is that there aren't 2-5 companies digging up streets and yards. Even if the government is corrupt to the tune of doubling every cost that's the same in real dollars as two providers building competitive infrastructure....add in a third and this option is still cheaper for the end consumer.
Yup.
However in my study of government, the more local the less corruption; on average. Local folks know what's going on in their town, and can walk over and talk to the mayor. City budgets tend to be balanced as a matter of law in most places. This would be an entirely local effort.
Indeed. Ours is.
Would it be trouble free? No. Would it be better than paying money to $BigTelcoCableCo who uses their money to argue for higher PUC rates, probably!
And to pay lobbyists to make projects like this *illegal* under state law. No, I am not making that up. 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