On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.
associated with large LECs, IXCs and other companies in possession of A) large amounts of fiber and/or b) large amounts of transport.
They are also typically in posession of large amounts of colo, usually their own, which they are already deployed into. Would you rather deploy into your own colo, or someone elses, particularly when that someone is in competition with you? Do you want to be in a facility your competitors have access to?
Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping equipment into competitors colos to provide service.
*bzzt* Wrong again. In order for a large carrier, particularly large access and transit ISPs to deploy into these facilities, they will require transport equipment. ADMs and diverse fiber entrances into those facilities are not cheap. They would have to fully deploy into each of these facilities.
Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book. So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.
The total equipment, fiber, and facilities cost of such a move is likely to be much higher than arranging for private peering as needed.
Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new circuits.
you receive these loops at or below cost due to Ma Telco's subsidization of those loops, it is very possibly a non-issue to arrange for 'large' circuits, peering or otherwise, as long as the capacity is there.
Having been there, it is not a cost thing, it is almost completely a lack of speed of provisioning at the local loop thing (aka the viscosity of bandwidth is high).
In my experience, presence at the same facility is only a peering enhancer for local and regional ISPs, who would very possibly not peer at all if there were a loop involved. The larger carriers have already made their arrangements.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Having a Nx192 system in a facility where there were lots of other large players and I could get a new connection turned up by a cross-connect work order would be very useful. /vijay