Rrlr ----- Original Message ----- From: nanog-request@nanog.org <nanog-request@nanog.org> To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tue Mar 27 11:22:36 2012 Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 50, Issue 113 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: OWA blocked by China (TR Shaw) 2. RE: OWA blocked by China (Thomas York) 3. Re: Muni Fiber (Ray Soucy) 4. Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc) (Owen DeLong) 5. Re: Muni Fiber (Owen DeLong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:45:25 -0400 From: TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com> To: Jim Gonzalez <jim@impactbusiness.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: OWA blocked by China Message-ID: <DD584E3F-7B92-4076-8983-A24C8D699E6D@oitc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 27, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jim Gonzalez wrote:

Hello,

One of my customers has workers in China. There outlook web access is blocked by the China Firewall. I was just wondering if anyone had this issue ? I have not tried any work arounds as of yet just gathering info

Jim Try a tunnel? Tom ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:50:53 -0400 From: "Thomas York" <straterra@fuhell.com> To: <tshaw@oitc.com>, <jim@impactbusiness.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: OWA blocked by China Message-ID: <008501cd0c29$0383bc90$0a8b35b0$@fuhell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Good luck with that. I have three plants in China and China Telecom loves batting down our VPN tunnels. They've left the current solution alone for a few months now. It appears they try to do DPI on SSL/IPSec to see if it's a VPN tunnel. I placed our SSL OpenVPN tunnel inside of a GRE tunnel. For some reason, they don't seem to be doing DPI on it and mostly leave it alone now. I'm sure it'll change at some point soon, though. -- Thomas York -----Original Message----- From: TR Shaw [mailto:tshaw@oitc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:45 AM To: Jim Gonzalez Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: OWA blocked by China On Mar 27, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jim Gonzalez wrote:

Hello,

One of my customers has workers in China. There outlook web access is blocked by the China Firewall. I was just wondering if anyone had this issue ? I have not tried any work arounds as of yet just gathering info

Jim Try a tunnel? Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 7138 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120327/c6d00a21/attachment-0001.bin> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:57:51 -0400 From: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber Message-ID: <CALFTrnMbqbqUxd4RJZN6jtBWOo94LQfg-3xy6qp8LBk7_kn+oQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 "Politically and legally are another matter" being key ;-) It was a long hard fight even in Maine to get a dark fiber utility (over a year of going before the legislature). The ILEC lobbyists are very influential and want to maintain the status quo at all costs. A lot of the examples you listed are pilot projects that providers do mostly for PR purposes so they can say "we provide FTTH" with a "* in select areas" footnote. They rarely see any large scale adoption and are usually operated at a loss. I think the key problem is that building out fiber doesn't make business sense if each provider in an area has to build out identical infrastructure and doesn't have the safety of a monopoly. As mentioned, providers are also concerned with the time it will take to realize ROI. The result is that we need to subsidize this infrastructure if we want it, but we end up with no competition and poor service if the service provider is the one getting those subsidies. Aside from very urban areas where the density can support the investment, the only solution becomes to create an open access public utility to maintain the fiber plant, cans, huts, etc. and prohibit them from offering any lit services over that fiber. As for rural areas not needing broadband; I think it's a matter of national interest that everyone has access to broadband. Just like power. When we make an effort to lift everyone up, we all do better. The Internet, like the Interstate highway system, is a time machine. It shortens distances between people and makes us more productive. Even better, it allows businesses to locate anywhere. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net

wrote:

Ray Soucy wrote:

...

If people got serious about FTTH, I think a _very_ optimistic timeline would be something like:

Not optimistic at all, technically or operationally. Politically and legally are another matter:

...

2015 - First communities coming online, 100M to the home (probably Gigabit line rate, but throttled).

There's been quite a lot of FTTH for quite a few years now. In addition to the Verizon FIOS stuff - up to 135mbps down/ 35mbps up available where I am (though I've been quite happy with lower speeds).

Municipal electric utilities have been deploying fiber right and left. Probably 200 systems operational. The two that come to mind immediately are:

Chattanooga, TN - GigE FTTH Today - http://chattanoogagig.com/ -

Grant County PUD (public utility district), OR has had the fiber in for a few years, selling wholesale - not sure what specific retail services are available

There'd probably be a lot more available if the big telcos and cable companies weren't doing everything they can to block municipal bids.

-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra

-- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:03:44 -0700 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc) Message-ID: <AF7AB7CD-AB81-4D99-82DD-37688FFB18E1@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Actual public financed non-muni fiber is skipping the easy parts and deploying only a few of the hard parts. (current actual results of USF) How is that an improvement? Owen On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

Well, for my part, /most of the poiny/ of muni is The Public Good; if /actual/ bond financed muni fiber is skipping the Hard Parts, it deserves to lose.

Time to assemble some stats, I guess. -- jra -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: Who cares?

It's time to stop letting rural deployments stand in the way of municipal deployments.

It's a natural part of living outside of a population center that it costs more to bring utility services to you. I'm not entirely opposed (though somewhat) to subsidizing that to some extent, but, I'm tired of municipal deployments being blocked by this sense of equal entitlement to rural.

The rural builds cost more, take longer, and yield lower revenues. It makes no sense to let that stand in the way of building out municipalities. Nothing prevents rural residents who have the means and really want their buildout prioritized from building a collective to get it done.

Subsidizing rural build-out is one thing. Failing to build out municipalities because of some sense of rural entitlement? That's just stupid.

Owen

Sent from my iPa d

On Mar 24, 2012, at 12:42 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:

...

How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban?

In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish they could do -- serve the most profitable customers.

Frank

-----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM To: NANOG Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)

<snip>

Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John.

The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate...

offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer can light up each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer layer 2 or 3 service at all.

High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it right.

As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint.

See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/

As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 -- or even layer 2, where the municipality suppli es (matching) ONTs, and services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data service.

I believe Google agrees with me. :-)

Cheers, -- jra

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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:19:46 -0700 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni Fiber Message-ID: <72636209-A7EF-4AB8-A145-55D6B3A06EAD@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Politically the makings of a similar situation already exist. Goverment has swung the USF funds to fuel rual broadband, strongly favoring FTTx where it makes sense. While companies like Verizon enjoy not having to share their fiber lines now, these same forces will conspire to drive unbundling in fiber, just as it did in copper. What they are getting now is simply a first mover advantage.

It's a bigger first mover advantage. They've learned their lesson from the copper unbundling and they are being allowed to deploy fiber in ways that will make it hard (impossible) to sell it on an unbundled basis later.

Government at the end of the day will fund the 20-40% of America which is profitable in the long run, but not in commercial time scales. They will also fund the 10% of America which will never be profitable, no mater what. It happened with Electricity and Telephone, and I suspect the societal drivers to do the same with the Internet will be even stronger. Companies will have to accept an unbundled tail to get access to this 30-50% of the market; and while they aren't interested now, they will be very soon.

Maybe, but, if what is happening now is allowed to continue, it will: 1. Not encourage competition anywhere. 2. Allow existing monopolies to preserve and extend those monopolies. 3. Cost even more than it already has. 4. Continue to lag behind the rest of the world. 5. Result in an inferior solution. What is needed is for regulators to step up with a bold vision for the public good. We need to encourage (or even require) local authorities to deploy (themselves or by contract) independent L1 infrastructure (yes, I like the 4-8 strands per residence star topology idea) to every structure within their jurisdiction and make it available to L2+ service providers on an equal-cost-per-subscriber basis in each jurisdiction. Yes, this means that the cost per subscriber will be lower in denser jurisdictions than it will be in less dense jurisdictions. However, users in those jurisdictions should expect to pay more for services and the ability to attract L2+ service providers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The important thing is to make sure that if public money is being used to build infrastructure, it becomes infrastructure that is useful to said public and not just a subsidy to some corporation for extending its monopoly in a manner that is often contrary to the public good. Unfortunately, that is exactly where the money is going today. Owen End of NANOG Digest, Vol 50, Issue 113 ************************************** This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.