----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
The L0 (ROW, poles & conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka "City" is also a consumer of "City 2 City" service above L2, and is also a consumer of "City 2 Subscriber" services above L2.
Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude "City" as a provider.
The City will be it's own customer for L1 ptp between our facilities, yes. We will also be a customer of the L1 service to provide the L2 service, and that MRC cost-recovery will be included in the L2 cost. While I realize that we could in turn be a competing L3 provider as a customer of the L1/2 provider, I'm loathe to go there if I'm not actually forced to; even moreso than the L2 bump, that's a *big* increase in labor and hence costs, in addition to which I've been convinced here that potential L3 providers will be less likely not to assume The Fix Is In in that case; the City's L3 provider getting an unfair break. If I can't get an LOI as suggested in the posting I just put up, then we may need to be the provider-of-last-resort, at a higher cost to continue to make coming in and competing as a provider. 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