Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday. If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause? Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the default state? Jared
On 6/2/21 14:27, Jared Brown wrote:
Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
Same here. Municipal broadband promotes the ability for more operators and customers to get access to network at a stable price. That's why I really like the Stokab model. Mark.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jared Brown <nanog-isp@mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause? Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the default state?
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is: Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait. If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause? Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the default state?
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house. It is easy to make the argument “muni broadband sucks because no competition” but it is much more difficult to back it up with hard data. Take a look at Nebraska for instance. Here, by law, electricity is a public utility. And yet we have some of the lowest rates and highest uptime in the country. No competition, low prices, stellar service record. I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity? Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, we actually do have fiber available at every address in the city. And a private company did it. 100 percent underground, all 96 square miles of the city. They did it all in about two years. I can get 50Mbps synchronous for $45, 500 for $70 or gig for $99. TV and phone also if I want it. Local support too, not India. They now have fiber in 15 Nebraska cities and two in Colorado and are expanding rapidly. Why? A great product at a great price with outstanding customer service. Spectrum is losing customers like crazy as a result, and precisely zero people are shedding any tears (Spectrum salesmen excepted). It can be done. Is it an investment? Yes. Just like anything else. Some investments have a quicker return on capital than others. ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863
On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause? Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the default state?
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house.
It is easy to make the argument “muni broadband sucks because no competition” but it is much more difficult to back it up with hard data.
Take a look at Nebraska for instance. Here, by law, electricity is a public utility. And yet we have some of the lowest rates and highest uptime in the country. No competition, low prices, stellar service record.
I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity?
Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, we actually do have fiber available at every address in the city. And a private company did it. 100 percent underground, all 96 square miles of the city. They did it all in about two years. I can get 50Mbps synchronous for $45, 500 for $70 or gig for $99. TV and phone also if I want it. Local support too, not India.
They now have fiber in 15 Nebraska cities and two in Colorado and are expanding rapidly. Why? A great product at a great price with outstanding customer service. Spectrum is losing customers like crazy as a result, and precisely zero people are shedding any tears (Spectrum salesmen excepted).
It can be done. Is it an investment? Yes. Just like anything else. Some investments have a quicker return on capital than others.
+1 on the investment lifecycle requirement. It can require a 10-20 year vision. The problem we have right now is due to squirrel chasing on the part of some companies the money that could have been invested in locking in markets was spent on other investments. You see a big difference between forward looking companies and their network performance and those that are backwards looking. I had to build fiber to my house because the fiber near my home (about 1200’ away) was not in a position to be upgraded or maintained in such a way to deliver service to our area. This is a very common trend I’ve observed. My county did a large broadband survey where a contractor drove by every home/property to determine what was there. Many addresses without service have multiple fiber providers at the road, it’s just not the “right fiber”. This also includes spare conduit and space that was built out in a forward thinking model that others have to duplicate later because the assets are lost or forgotten in paperwork. I also see a number of the smaller ISPs (and some bigger ones) who are like “you can watch Netflix and zoom, what’s your problem?” When there are end-users that are willing to pay for the higher speeds. Not every home is going to spend $8k or $100k to get service, but they certainly do exist and make the business case more feasible. - Jared
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote:
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house.
Hi Andy, Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding? There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter storms) but mostly you get better power service. A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed, flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could be replaced.
I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity?
Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to build out monopoly networks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Hi, Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service. It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US. That was aided by the following: * Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time * Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time * Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time * Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted pair) as the very last interconnect segment. We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has turned out to be a horrible investment. We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or should be run by the municipality. The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well for dense locations of course. Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to play for at least several decades if not more. I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for service they "don't need". I have worked with several people who were paying for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 or 200/40, I would probably consider it. None of the realities of current "needs" and "wants" really are going to change the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the community. -Harry On 6/2/21 11:50 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth<andy@andyring.com> wrote:
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them. In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house. Hi Andy,
Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding? There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter storms) but mostly you get better power service.
A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed, flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could be replaced.
I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity? Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to build out monopoly networks.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) Hi, Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service. It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US. That was aided by the following: * Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time * Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time * Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time * Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted pair) as the very last interconnect segment. We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has turned out to be a horrible investment. We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or should be run by the municipality. The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well for dense locations of course. Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to play for at least several decades if not more. I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for service they "don't need". I have worked with several people who were paying for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 or 200/40, I would probably consider it. None of the realities of current "needs" and "wants" really are going to change the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the community. -Harry On 6/2/21 11:50 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote: <blockquote> <blockquote> Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is: Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait. If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them. In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house. </blockquote> Hi Andy, Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding? There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter storms) but mostly you get better power service. A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed, flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could be replaced. <blockquote> I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity? </blockquote> Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to build out monopoly networks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ </blockquote>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc.
If your whole model is monopoly services (att/verizon/cabletown) why would you bother entering a service area where you might have competition? (and an operational model which is radically different from your other properties) I don't think it's necessary for the 'incumbent telco' (or cabletown) to need/want to participate with the municipal dark-fiber-equivalent deployments, is it? All that's needed is a couple (one to start) local 'isp' that can service what is effectively a light-duty L1 and ethernet plant, and customer service(s).
This wouldn't be for the purposes of entering a new market, but an opportunity to shed your high-cost legacy infrastructure and provide better service in existing markets. Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org>, "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:46:16 PM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. If your whole model is monopoly services (att/verizon/cabletown) why would you bother entering a service area where you might have competition? (and an operational model which is radically different from your other properties) I don't think it's necessary for the 'incumbent telco' (or cabletown) to need/want to participate with the municipal dark-fiber-equivalent deployments, is it? All that's needed is a couple (one to start) local 'isp' that can service what is effectively a light-duty L1 and ethernet plant, and customer service(s).
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:02:02PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: [...]
Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen.
If there's any regulation, it ought to be along the lines of: If you use the public ROW, you cannot be an L3 provider. Let the last mile people connect last mile entities to ISPs. Let ISPs compete for consumers based on service, not on what infrastructure they have to a geographic group of consumers. There will be unintended consequences, but it does stop "silo" issues and forces things towards common infrastructure.
The incumbent operators and cable companies want nothing to do with these networks because they already have their own. I’ve worked with several smaller regional providers and WISPs that would love to have access to muni networks but the local network muni either won’t allow the access or they price the access at a price point that it’s impossible to be competitive with the muni’s retail side of the house. -richey From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+richey.goldberg=gmail.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 4:12 PM To: Harry McGregor <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) Hi, Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service. It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US. That was aided by the following: Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted pair) as the very last interconnect segment. We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has turned out to be a horrible investment. We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or should be run by the municipality. The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well for dense locations of course. Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to play for at least several decades if not more. I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for service they "don't need". I have worked with several people who were paying for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 or 200/40, I would probably consider it. None of the realities of current "needs" and "wants" really are going to change the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the community. -Harry On 6/2/21 11:50 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote: Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is: Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait. If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them. In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house. Hi Andy, Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding? There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter storms) but mostly you get better power service. A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed, flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could be replaced. I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity? Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to build out monopoly networks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
The post to which I replied specifically called for a converged network for all operators. This is the second time I've had to say this. Do people not read an e-mail before replying to it? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richey Goldberg" <richey.goldberg@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:41:27 AM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) The incumbent operators and cable companies want nothing to do with these networks because they already have their own. I’ve worked with several smaller regional providers and WISPs that would love to have access to muni networks but the local network muni either won’t allow the access or they price the access at a price point that it’s impossible to be competitive with the muni’s retail side of the house. -richey From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+richey.goldberg=gmail.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 4:12 PM To: Harry McGregor <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Harry McGregor" <hmcgregor@biggeeks.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) Hi, Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service. It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US. That was aided by the following: * Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time * Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time * Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time * Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted pair) as the very last interconnect segment. We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has turned out to be a horrible investment. We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or should be run by the municipality. The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well for dense locations of course. Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to play for at least several decades if not more. I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for service they "don't need". I have worked with several people who were paying for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 or 200/40, I would probably consider it. None of the realities of current "needs" and "wants" really are going to change the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the community. -Harry On 6/2/21 11:50 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth <andy@andyring.com> wrote: <blockquote> <blockquote> Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is: Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact product quality. It's a pretty universal trait. If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them. In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house. </blockquote> Hi Andy, Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding? There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter storms) but mostly you get better power service. A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed, flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could be replaced. <blockquote> I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity? </blockquote> Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to build out monopoly networks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ </blockquote>
Once upon a time, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> said:
A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements a local network distribution service and then you buy from the Internet provider of your choice.
That's sort of how it works where I live. The city-owned non-profit utility company wanted to build out a network to support smart metering, better monitoring, etc. They contracted out to someone to build fiber to the curb throughout the city, got their piece for the smart meters and such, and then leased access to anyone that wants it. They signed Google Fiber as the initial carrier, who then has people come run the fiber from the curb to the house and install the ONT and router. I think GFiber is the only company selling service city-wide on it, although I think there are some companies doing business services in some areas. It's not quite the same as the multi-vendor electricity setup, where only one company actually delivers the amps to your house, but kind of close. So far, the old-school carriers (AT&T, Comcast, and WoW) I think have ignored the utility's network. About three months after the utility fiber was buried on my street and I got Google Fiber, AT&T came through digging up yards again to run their own fiber. They then advertised promotional rates that were $20/month more than GFiber (and the AT&T rate required a bundle and a contract, while GFiber required neither). I can't imagine they got many takers except from people who just stay with AT&T out of momentum. I'd think that eventually, AT&T/Comcast/WoW would switch over to the utility's network, at least in new developments, but who knows. I have no idea how the prices works out for them vs. building and maintaining their own thing. We've had two cable TV companies available at most addresses since the mid-1980s, which meant we had some of the lowest cable prices in the country for a long time. About the time Dish/DirecTV cranked up, I think both recognized they could get away with raising their rates to something competitve with the satellite providers. No actual collusion or anything (probably), but our cable rates went up really fast there for a while. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
On 6/2/21 18:12, William Herrin wrote:
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
Which is the Stokab model. Was the assumption that the city would be providing both the fibre and the Internet service? No, that would not necessarily work. The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at the same price, and get out of the way. End of. Mark.
Mark Tinka wrote:
Which is the Stokab model.
Does it use single star?
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine. However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly. Masataka Ohta
On 6/3/21 07:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
With single star topology, that's fine.
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if not all) Active-E. Mark.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if not all) Active-E.
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though. Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG wrote:
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if not all) Active-E.
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.
Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much. Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star. On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly. Masataka Ohta
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star.
On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
In my opinion, if a city is installing a fiber network for other providers to use, they need to plan on active-e only. Let it be up to the providers back at the head end to either plug the individual strands into a switch for active-e or into a splitter for a PON type setup. Thank you Travis Garrison -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tgarrison=netviscom.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star.
On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores. A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a 96 core cable. Only at very low core count does this break up somewhat. A 12 core cable is still significantly cheaper than 24 cores. A 1 core cable is the same price as 4 cores however. On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192 cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with GPON. Then there is the price to the ducting. A 192 core cable requires bigger ducts and plastic is not only expensive, it has recently become scarce. Putting in a 24 core cable in a 10/6 duct is much cheaper than a 192 core cable.
Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star.
Now a splitter can be mounted in a splice enclosure taking up the same space as 12 splices. We use dome shaped water tight enclosures for 96 splices and then we replace one of the splicing trays with the splitters. All of this fits in a handhole about 70 cm long, 60 cm wide and 30 cm deep. Another operator here instead has the splitters in cabinets with a cabinet for every 50 to 200 passed homes. You could build a P2P network like that, but then you would need power and active equipment in these cabinets. Not sure what you are talking about with regards to drop cables. The house connection is identical in a GPON and P2P network.
On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
Typically the infrastructure owner runs the PON equipment and resell vlan based access to ISPs. Regards, Baldur
Baldur, Dude you are just so wrong. You really need to stop guessing at things.
A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a 96 core cable
192 doesn't even really exist in the mass market. The cost of 144 is not double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144. This is accurate as of June 1 2021 from my quotes.
On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192 cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with GPON.
A) Don't splice the 190 or B) use ribbon and it takes only a few minutes total. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:14 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores. A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a 96 core cable. Only at very low core count does this break up somewhat. A 12 core cable is still significantly cheaper than 24 cores. A 1 core cable is the same price as 4 cores however.
On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192 cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with GPON.
Then there is the price to the ducting. A 192 core cable requires bigger ducts and plastic is not only expensive, it has recently become scarce. Putting in a 24 core cable in a 10/6 duct is much cheaper than a 192 core cable.
Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using dedicated cores of single star.
Now a splitter can be mounted in a splice enclosure taking up the same space as 12 splices. We use dome shaped water tight enclosures for 96 splices and then we replace one of the splicing trays with the splitters. All of this fits in a handhole about 70 cm long, 60 cm wide and 30 cm deep.
Another operator here instead has the splitters in cabinets with a cabinet for every 50 to 200 passed homes. You could build a P2P network like that, but then you would need power and active equipment in these cabinets.
Not sure what you are talking about with regards to drop cables. The house connection is identical in a GPON and P2P network.
On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
Typically the infrastructure owner runs the PON equipment and resell vlan based access to ISPs.
Regards,
Baldur
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.
Indeed, there are people who insist cost of PON were small without valid reasons. See below for an example. Baldur Norddahl wrote:
As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores.
It's *cabling* cost. OK?
A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a
Cabling cost means cost including but not limited to cable cost. Most of cabling cost is cost to lay cables. Backhoe costs. Space factor of a fiber cable is negligible if you put a cable into utility tunnels which is wide, especially when tunnels were used for copper cables of POTS. Josh Luthman wrote:
The cost of 144 is not double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144.
Yup. When PON was first conceived several tens of years ago, core cost a lot. But, today... Masataka Ohta
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:53 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores.
My apology to Masataka Ohta for my too strong wording by calling you wrong. The moderators put me in place. I wanted to say I disagree with the claim.
Most of cabling cost is cost to lay cables. Backhoe costs. Space factor of a fiber cable is negligible if you put a cable into utility tunnels which is wide, especially when tunnels were used for copper cables of POTS.
It is true that trenching costs are higher than the cables themselves. But that does not mean the cables are cheap and that it is an insignificant cost. Cables + duct is about 20% of our cost to lay down the network. Not having huts with active equipment spread all around is also a huge cost saving that can not be ignored.
The cost of 144 is not
double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144.
Yup. When PON was first conceived several tens of years ago, core cost a lot. But, today...
I should point out that I probably buy more cable than most. The exact pricing is of course not public, but lets say a core cost somewhere between 1 to 2 USD cents per meter. Then you simply multiply up to get an approximate price of the cable. Holds true for cables with more than about 12 cores. This is because with larger cables the cost of the cores dominate the price of the cable. When you buy as much as we do, you do not really get a huge rebate for buying more cores in a single cable - we already buy insane amounts of core - it is just distributed in more cables. The moderator is right in that we do not seem to progress much here in this discussion. So lets agree to disagree. But let me get this closing comment in anyway... the guy that actually builds PON networks says he does so, because it is significantly cheaper. We have no other motivations as our network is not open to third parties in any case. Our motivation is to stay profitable. Regards, Baldur
All I'm going to say is at $5/foot for fiber, even if it's 864 count, you are royally overpaying for material! Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:42 AM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:53 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores.
My apology to Masataka Ohta for my too strong wording by calling you wrong. The moderators put me in place. I wanted to say I disagree with the claim.
Most of cabling cost is cost to lay cables. Backhoe costs. Space factor of a fiber cable is negligible if you put a cable into utility tunnels which is wide, especially when tunnels were used for copper cables of POTS.
It is true that trenching costs are higher than the cables themselves. But that does not mean the cables are cheap and that it is an insignificant cost. Cables + duct is about 20% of our cost to lay down the network. Not having huts with active equipment spread all around is also a huge cost saving that can not be ignored.
The cost of 144 is not
double that of 72. 288 is not double the cost of 144.
Yup. When PON was first conceived several tens of years ago, core cost a lot. But, today...
I should point out that I probably buy more cable than most. The exact pricing is of course not public, but lets say a core cost somewhere between 1 to 2 USD cents per meter. Then you simply multiply up to get an approximate price of the cable. Holds true for cables with more than about 12 cores. This is because with larger cables the cost of the cores dominate the price of the cable. When you buy as much as we do, you do not really get a huge rebate for buying more cores in a single cable - we already buy insane amounts of core - it is just distributed in more cables.
The moderator is right in that we do not seem to progress much here in this discussion. So lets agree to disagree. But let me get this closing comment in anyway... the guy that actually builds PON networks says he does so, because it is significantly cheaper. We have no other motivations as our network is not open to third parties in any case. Our motivation is to stay profitable.
Regards,
Baldur
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with the number of cores.
My apology to Masataka Ohta for my too strong wording by calling you wrong. The moderators put me in place. I wanted to say I disagree with the claim.
I rather thank you for your very strong statements with so obviously wrong reasoning, as it is trivially easy for me and, as you can see, other participants of the list to argue against.
It is true that trenching costs are higher than the cables themselves. But that does not mean the cables are cheap and that it is an insignificant cost. Cables + duct is about 20% of our cost to lay down the network.
"Cables + duct is about 20%"??? Are you saying reduction of 20% of cost of single star by PON matters if duct cost of PON, which is as significant as that of single star, could be ignored? Maybe. it could actually be 20% of cost reduction, if, in addition, cost of complicated closure and unnecessarily lengthy drop cable cost of PON could be ignored. So?
Not having huts with active equipment spread all around is also a huge cost saving that can not be ignored.
Are you saying single star has "huts with active equipment"? The reality is that reach of single star without active relays is a lot longer than that of PON, because single star does not use splitters, which is lossy. With a fiber of 0.2dB/km loss, 9dB loss inherent to 8 way splitter of PON means 45km less reach.
I should point out that I probably buy more cable than most. The exact pricing is of course not public, but lets say a core cost somewhere between 1 to 2 USD cents per meter. Then
When? 50 years ago? Masataka Ohta
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:37 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine.
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with a PON design. If the network is not a "one fiber per customer" design, then the muni network will own the entire GPON/XGS-PON infrastructure (fiber, splitters and lit electronics). The ISP is just providing bits, customer service, billing, and maybe the inside install and CPE. Sometimes, the transport to the customer is a fee paid by the ISP to the network owner. In other cases the end-customer pays the fiber transport cost directly to the network owner, and then pays a separate bill just for their desired ISP service. This is all designed for open access with each ISP having their own NNIs and service VLANs on the lit network to connect back to their ISP service network. Often the muni owners are looking for a "network operator" that is usually one of the ISPs on the network, who will handle all the physical administration and connection work for the lit network, and is paid some sort of fee for doing this. They have to stay neutral as the operator, when dealing with other ISPs, with contract requirements and SLAs for maintaining the network for all involved. There are several successful municipal or utility district owned open access fiber infrastructure projects in the US. Some of the implementations even allow the customer to "self service" switch to a new ISP as desired, via a web portal and have several choices for providers. Occasionally a muni network will want a single ISP for the entire network. They will offer an ISP an exclusive contract for a fixed period of time, and negotiate for the lowest possible price for their residents for the bandwidth provided. I know of muni owned networks where the residents are paying $30/month for full 1GigE ISP service, and all the other costs are paid by their property taxes servicing a long term bond for the construction costs. -- Jim Troutman, jamesltroutman@gmail.com Pronouns: he/him/his 207-514-5676 (cell)
On 6/3/21 09:07, Jim Troutman wrote:
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with a PON design.
In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access), all the major fibre operators run a GPON network. They all provide open access to the ISP's they partner with. So far, it seems to work well. I'd say only one of the fibre operators is not an ISP (there may be more, it's a big country). The rest are, but they run the businesses as a silo so that they are fair to both their ISP divisions as well as the 3rd party ISP's they partner with. Mark.
On 6/3/21 09:15, Mark Tinka wrote:
In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access)...
That's actually untrue - I just remembered that the City of Cape Town actually does build fibre. It's not very clear to me to what extent they operate it, particularly beyond supporting municipal departments: https://www.capetown.gov.za/Media-and-news/City%20digs%20in%20smartly%20to%2... It's possible some other cities are doing the same, but the message I was pushing is that pretty much all FTTx of note going into homes, businesses and data centres is being built and operated by the private sector. Mark.
Jim Troutman wrote:
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with a PON design.
Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is why PON is so popular. Muni fiber operators deploying PON because it is so pupular are just dumb stupid.
If the network is not a "one fiber per customer" design, then the muni network will own the entire GPON/XGS-PON infrastructure (fiber, splitters and lit electronics).
What if the muni infrastructure is plain PON with 1G ether switches? Where is the competition to improve the infrastructure, even though it is already "broadband"? Or, even if it is GPON with 10G switches, how can it be upgraded to 10GPON with 100G switches?
The ISP is just providing bits, customer service, billing, and maybe the inside install and CPE.
You miss "bps", which is essential to be "broadband". Masataka Ohta
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:44 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Jim Troutman wrote:
Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is why PON is so popular.
Muni fiber operators deploying PON because it is so pupular are just dumb stupid.
As the founder/owner of a private FTTH operator I can say the above is wrong. The _only_ reason we use PON is because it is vastly cheaper to build. It is also more flexible, which might be counter intuitive. I have watched competitors try P2P but it is always a disaster for them. The PON network will finish sooner, require considerably less cabling and ducts, easier to expand with unplanned capacity, can be rerouted when an expected permit fails to go through, and does not require much footprint for active equipment. We have a single road side cabinet, using less than a single square meter, serving an area in excess of 100 square kilometers. In theory GPON can go all the way to 40 km from switch to customer, which would be more than 1000 square km served from one point of presence. Fiberstrands are not free. In a P2P topology you need to have cabinets with active equipment close to the customers, otherwise you will have huge costs for all that fiber. Your network would also become vulnerable because a fiber cut on a duct with thousands of fiberstrands is not something that gets fixed in a few hours. Huge cables can not easily be rerouted when other construction works require you to do so. Regards, Baldur
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Mark Tinka wrote:
Which is the Stokab model.
Does it use single star?
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators atthe same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine.
https://stokab.se/download/18.310b3d5c174c5513aec263/1601471204836/Framtiden... It's in swede-crypt, but it boils down to single strand of fiber from a central area node, to the basement, one for each apartment. However, the building owner has to arrange for the cabling within the building. It's single star, and typically the "node" it's all connected to will serve thousands of apartments. So an ISP will colocate in this "node" and can then rent fibers to provide FTTH services, at a fixed monthly cost (last I heard it was in the ~10USD a month range). Stokab isn't alone in this model, they're not the most successful, there are better examples of this. Sweden is also home to a lot of worse examples, all from "muni networks" that will be L2 transport providers, that will have L3 networks, to the ones who are L2/L3 but also sell services themselves. It's a zoo. There is muni broadband that sucks and there is muni broadband that is great. Without defining what kind of muni broadband we're talking about it's impossible to have a productive discussion. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (17)
-
Andy Ringsmuth -
Baldur Norddahl -
Chris Adams -
Christopher Morrow -
Harry McGregor -
Jared Brown -
Jared Mauch -
Jim Troutman -
John Osmon -
Josh Luthman -
Mark Tinka -
Masataka Ohta -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mike Hammett -
Richey Goldberg -
Travis Garrison -
William Herrin