Re: Followup: Small City Municipal Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
No; I wouldn't offer it retail; I'd offer it to all provider-comers wholesale, at cost plus, just like everything else.
It sure seems like just pushing the competition (or lack thereof) up the stack.
Could be. To compete with Roadrunner, people will have to do triple play, and the CATV is the hard part. If someone else is already doing the aggregation, I'm good with that.
Running a decent layer 3 service is "hard" too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services?
You could say the same thing about the uplink,
Which uplink is that? I'm a little confused.
My colo's uplinks to the world, which were one of three things I proposed offering at wholesale to ISPs.
though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you?
If you were to open your colo to all comers that have similar models to Akamai, that seems fair. After all, it's not the city selling Akamai services to either the ISPs or end-users, the city is just providing a convenient way for the providers that are there to interconnect with content providers that care to show up.
Precisely. Akamai's business model is that they just show up? Me and my ISPs don't have to pay them?
Now if you were to encourage an IPTV services provider that WASN'T the city to co-locate at the facility, that seems reasonable as long as terms were even if another one wanted to show up. I could imagine that some might sell service direct retail, others might go wholesale with one of the other service providers. Maybe both?
Perhaps; yeah.
This whole thing is the highway analogy to me. The fiber is the road. The city MIGHT build a rest stop (layer 2), but shouldn't be allowed to either be in the trucking business (layer 3), nor in the business of manufacturing the products that get shipped over the road (IPTV, VOIP, etc.), and the same should apply to the company that maintains the fiber, if it's outsourced.
Ok, fair point. My goal in IX and Akamai was "unload my uplinks". The bigger my downlinks are, the more I will care. 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
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
Running a decent layer 3 service is "hard" too. Isn't the whole point to let these service providers compete with each other on the quality and cost of their services?
You could say the same thing about the uplink,
Which uplink is that? I'm a little confused.
My colo's uplinks to the world, which were one of three things I proposed offering at wholesale to ISPs.
I guess I missed that. You are saying that you would aggregate/resell transit bandwidth in your colo? I would argue against that as well. I'd suggest making sure your colo had adequate entrance facilities to allow whomever wants to provide upstream service there to show up, and allow them access to the fiber, which you already effectively have done.
though; I note you didn't throw a flag at that, or at Akamai; is the IPTV issue different to you?
If you were to open your colo to all comers that have similar models to Akamai, that seems fair. After all, it's not the city selling Akamai services to either the ISPs or end-users, the city is just providing a convenient way for the providers that are there to interconnect with content providers that care to show up.
Precisely. Akamai's business model is that they just show up? Me and my ISPs don't have to pay them?
I guess as far as putting an Akamai server in a colo/on an exchange, I assumed they didn't charge, but now that you mention it, I don't have first hand knowledge of that. I certainly would suggest that the city should not pay for anyone to show up at the colo, but allow them access if they care to do so on equal footing. Of course Akamai charges for their services, that's a bit different than just exchanging traffic. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
participants (2)
-
Brandon Ross -
Jay Ashworth