Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
I hope I said "E7"; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project just to beginning of build, at this point, likely.
Assuming I get the gig at all.
The E7 is a good shelf, so that's a decent starting point. I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I'd also focus much more on your cost per port than the density since your uptake rate will be driven by economics long before port density and how much space your gear takes becomes an issue.
2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection.
Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The largest PON offering in the US is Verizon's FIOS, but AFAIK they don't interconnect with anyone at layer 2 and their layer 3 fiber connections are either Packet Over SONET, Gig E(most common), or very occasionally still ATM. I have heard of a few instances where they'd buy existing GPON networks but I've never heard of them cross connecting like this even with operators that they do significant business with in other ways.
But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout.
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can.
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro ethernet switches. On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no
other reason but get the best pricing you can.
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
What does Cisco shitty metro switches have to do with anything? Haaaaaay we have the best shitty metro-e boxes around. We're awesome. On Feb 2, 2013 4:49 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
That's one of the reasons to look at active ethernet over gpon. There is much more of a chance to do v6 on that gear, especially cisco's Metro ethernet switches. On Feb 2, 2013 5:27 PM, "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no
other reason but get the best pricing you can.
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
I can't believe I'm going to beat Owen to this point, but considering you a building a brand new infrastructure, I'd hope you'd support your service provider's stakeholders if they want to do IPv6. To do so securely, you'll want your neutral layer 2 infrastrcuture to at least support RA-guard and DHCPv6 shield. You might also want/need DHCPv6 PD snooping, MLD snooping. We have found VERY disappointing support for these features in this type of gear.
IPv6 would be on my ticklist, yes. :-) 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 Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
......
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at
Jay may be referring to something I alluded to earlier, what Calix refers to as RF overlay. The RF signal from the traditional cable system is converted to 1550nm and combined onto the PON before the splitter with a CWDM module. Certain model ONT's split the 1550 back off and convert back to an RF port.
Jason, Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that used the modulated RF approach. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jason Baugher <jason@thebaughers.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013 3:33 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
......
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at
Jay may be referring to something I alluded to earlier, what Calix refers to as RF overlay. The RF signal from the traditional cable system is converted to 1550nm and combined onto the PON before the splitter with a CWDM module. Certain model ONT's split the 1550 back off and convert back to an RF port.
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 13-02-02 21:29, Scott Helms wrote:
Yeah, that's what I figured. There are lots of older PON deployments that used the modulated RF approach.
From what I have read, Verizon's FIOS does that. RFoG cable TV for certain frequencies, normal ethernet data for other frequencies, and dedicated bandwidth for VoIP.
Cable companies in Canada have begun to deploy FTTH in greenfields. And those are deployed to be compatible with their coax infrastructure. The fibre from the CMTS is simply extended to the home instead of stopping at a "node" on a telephone pole. The coax starts at the ONT to get to the TV sets. Not sure if they have a DOCSIS modem attached to the coax or if they get the ethernet out of ONT. However, Rogers seems to have areas being deployed differently and I *believe* it is pure ethernet. (and not even sure if GPON). Rogers also wants to go all IPTV , something unexpected from a traditional cableTV company. Something to consider about dark fibre L1 service: If city lets Service Providers perform installations (string from telephone pole to homes etc), you need to worry about damages they can cause. And in cases when customer unsubscribes from SP-1 and subscribes to SP-2 you have to make sure that SP-1 doesn't damage the termination of the fibre in the home to make installation by SP-2 harder/costlier. In an L2 service, the city is responsible for all installations and de-installs and has no incentive to damage the infrastructure to hurt a competitor. And generally, the CPE is installed by city and stays in place when end user swiches service provider.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Something to consider about dark fibre L1 service: If city lets Service Providers perform installations (string from telephone pole to homes etc), you need to worry about damages they can cause. And in cases when customer unsubscribes from SP-1 and subscribes to SP-2 you have to make sure that SP-1 doesn't damage the termination of the fibre in the home to make installation by SP-2 harder/costlier.
You're still not getting it. And I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not. But I've been pretty clear: Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear aggregates it from L1 to whatever. No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems. That's most of the point here. 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 13-02-02 23:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear aggregates it from L1 to whatever.
No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems.
Not talking about MDF/CO/MMR or whatever you call the aggregation point. While you've made it clear that you don't let Service Providers play around in that aggregation point, you didn't define (or perhaps I missed it) the responsabilities for work at homes. When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ? When "passing homes", you would generally have pre-built taps such as Corning FlexNAPs along the cable so that a strand can be added quickly between the tap at telephone pole and the home wanting to get service. You only connect homes that subscribe to your service. (so you have to decide who is responsible for stringing fibre from telephone pole to the home when end user subscribes to a Service Provider's services. Not entirely sure what sort of methods they use when it is an underground cable plant. (perhaps more likely to see fibre brought to each home during the dig, perhaps not). In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking the ONT out to be returned to the SP. In Canada, the wholesale regime gives the owner of the cable plant (telco or cableco) responsibility for all installs even for independent ISPs. However, independent ISPs are responsible for providing approved modems to their customers. (different for VDSL where the telco provides the modems even for custoemrs of indy ISPs since the modems are customized to work with the VDSL DSLAMS selected by the telcos). In the case of cable companies, they have a list of approved DOCIS modems they allow independent ISPs to sell to teir customers. We'll see in the next few months what will transpire for a wholesale FTTH access in terms of responsabilities for CPE equipment (ONT, battery backup etc).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
On 13-02-02 23:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear aggregates it from L1 to whatever.
No aerial plant at all, no multple provider runs to the prems.
Not talking about MDF/CO/MMR or whatever you call the aggregation point. While you've made it clear that you don't let Service Providers play around in that aggregation point, you didn't define (or perhaps I missed it) the responsabilities for work at homes.
Ah, and that's because I was making an assumption I didn't actually mention; my apologies.
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ?
I was planning to at the very least bring the 'drop' (the underground tail) up on to the structure. We probably won't actually put the ONTs on for people who don't pre-sub. It's still an open question whether we'll use interior or exterior ONTs for our own L2 service, but the idea that there will be competing L2/3 providers lets out the idea of preprovisioning all the ONTs; no sense.
When "passing homes", you would generally have pre-built taps such as Corning FlexNAPs along the cable so that a strand can be added quickly between the tap at telephone pole and the home wanting to get service. You only connect homes that subscribe to your service. (so you have to decide who is responsible for stringing fibre from telephone pole to the home when end user subscribes to a Service Provider's services.
Yeah; everything from the MMR/MDF to the prem is our responsibility; the ISPs rack up in the colo and we physically hand them optical (or ethernet) patches.
Not entirely sure what sort of methods they use when it is an underground cable plant. (perhaps more likely to see fibre brought to each home during the dig, perhaps not).
It was my plan, yes, but I haven't talked to fiber install contractor people yet, since this is at least a 36 month project.
In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking the ONT out to be returned to the SP.
I'm sure someone makes scissor-proof armored optical drop cables, right? :-)
In Canada, the wholesale regime gives the owner of the cable plant (telco or cableco) responsibility for all installs even for independent ISPs. However, independent ISPs are responsible for providing approved modems to their customers. (different for VDSL where the telco provides the modems even for custoemrs of indy ISPs since the modems are customized to work with the VDSL DSLAMS selected by the telcos). In the case of cable companies, they have a list of approved DOCIS modems the> allow independent ISPs to sell to teir customers.
That's something like how, say, RoadRunner does it here; they'll supply the cablemodem, or you can buy a compatible one. It's a loss, since they'll replace lightning zapped ones for free if it's there.
We'll see in the next few months what will transpire for a wholesale FTTH access in terms of responsabilities for CPE equipment (ONT, battery backup etc).
In Canada, you mean? Interesting. 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
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure dark muni-network, the muni would run the fiber into the prem to a patch panel, and stop at that point. I believe for fiber it should be inside the prem, not outside. The same would apply for both residential and commercial. Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points. The customer (again, typically the service provider) would then plug in any CPE, be it an ONT, or ethernet SFP, or WDM mux. Note I say typically the service provider, because I want to enable in this model the ability for you and I, if we both have homes in this area, to pay the same $X/month and get a patch between our two homes. No service provider involved. If we want to stand up GigE on it because that's cheap, wonderful. If we want to stand up 16x100GE WDM, excellent as well. It's very similar to me to the traditional copper model used by the ILECs. There is a demark box that terminates the outside plant and allows the customer to connect the inside plant. The facilities provider stops at that box (unless you pay them to do more, of course). The provisioning process I'm advocating is substantially similar to ordering a "dry pair" in the copper world, although perhaps with a bit more customer service since it would be a service the muni wants to sell!
In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking the ONT out to be returned to the SP.
The box is the demark. If they damage something on the customer side, that's their own issue. If the damage something on the facilities provider side, the facilities provider will charge them to fix it. There would be no "just coming out of the wall". There would be a 6-12 SC (FC?) connector patch panel in a small plastic enclosure, with the outside plant properly secured (conduit, in the wall, etc) and not exposed. The homewowner or their service provider would plug into that patch panel. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure dark muni-network, the muni would run the fiber into the prem to a patch panel, and stop at that point. I believe for fiber it should be inside the prem, not outside. The same would apply for both residential and commercial.
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
The customer (again, typically the service provider) would then plug in any CPE, be it an ONT, or ethernet SFP, or WDM mux.
Note I say typically the service provider, because I want to enable in this model the ability for you and I, if we both have homes in this area, to pay the same $X/month and get a patch between our two homes. No service provider involved. If we want to stand up GigE on it because that's cheap, wonderful. If we want to stand up 16x100GE WDM, excellent as well.
It's very similar to me to the traditional copper model used by the ILECs. There is a demark box that terminates the outside plant and allows the customer to connect the inside plant. The facilities provider stops at that box (unless you pay them to do more, of course). The provisioning process I'm advocating is substantially similar to ordering a "dry pair" in the copper world, although perhaps with a bit more customer service since it would be a service the muni wants to sell!
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
In any event, you still have to worry about responsability if you allow Service Providers to install their on ONT or whatever CPE equipment in homes. If they damage the fibre cable when customer unsubscribes, who is responsible for the costs of repair ? (consider a case where either homeowner or SP just cuts the fibre as it comes out of wall when taking the ONT out to be returned to the SP.
The box is the demark. If they damage something on the customer side, that's their own issue. If the damage something on the facilities provider side, the facilities provider will charge them to fix it.
There would be no "just coming out of the wall". There would be a 6-12 SC (FC?) connector patch panel in a small plastic enclosure, with the outside plant properly secured (conduit, in the wall, etc) and not exposed. The homewowner or their service provider would plug into that patch panel.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one. Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
Joe, I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still "residential focused" CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed. What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market. regards, Fletcher On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Fletcher, Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ "making stuff up". In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still "residential focused" CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed.
What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market.
regards, Fletcher
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
What we've seen is that the RBOC typically has a lot of crap copper in the ground, in a lot of cases air-core (pre gel-fill) that hasn't held up well. With the popularity of DSL, they ran out of good pairs to use. As they ran out of pairs, they eventually had to put in remote terminals to handle any new voice orders. They knew the future was fiber, at least to the node, so they had no incentive to build new copper plant, and little incentive to maintain the existing plant. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Fletcher,
Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ "making stuff up". In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still "residential focused" CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed.
What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market.
regards, Fletcher
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see
any
residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher" <jason@thebaughers.com>
What we've seen is that the RBOC typically has a lot of crap copper in the ground, in a lot of cases air-core (pre gel-fill) that hasn't held up well. With the popularity of DSL, they ran out of good pairs to use. As they ran out of pairs, they eventually had to put in remote terminals to handle any new voice orders. They knew the future was fiber, at least to the node, so they had no incentive to build new copper plant, and little incentive to maintain the existing plant.
I have been saying, out loud, in public places, for at least 15 years, that Verizon's *real* incentive in doing FiOS was to clean up after 3 decades of GTE doing cut-to-clear rather than fixing actual problems in their copper OSP... 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
Scott; I apologize. You could very well sincerely not realize you are wrong. Obviously, erroneous thinking is not the same as making things up. However, it is not good that bad information is out there and it should be corrected. First you refer to them as "dry copper" or "dry pair" which has no regulatory meaning. I don't know if using the wrong term is part of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. UNEs are the elements the ILECs are required to sell to CLECs. There are a variety of different types of UNE loops. The most accurate way to identify them is probably referring to an ILEC wholesale tariff filed on a state-by-state basis. The FCC defines Section 251 requirements, but individual state PUCs administer the tariffs for their locations. Second, going to any document by the NTCA, an advocacy organization, for information on this topic is a mistake for obvious bias reasons. The controlling documents are the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act), the FCC's Triennial Review Order[s](TRO), various ILEC tariffs and the individual InterConnection Agreements(ICA) between ILECs and CLECs. Under the Telco Act, UNE loops are a Section 251 requirement. The FCC has primary responsibility for administering Section 251 requirements and the FCC's rules for doing so are put forth in the TROs. The last TROs were released in 2004, so that would be the last time "the rules changed" as you put it. So there has not been a recent change in the rules resulting in residential CLEC demise. Third, it is true that an ILEC is not required to add capacity. However, it is hard for me to believe anyone would say with a straight face that any residential CLECs went out of business primarily because ILECs are not required to add copper. In a period where there is steady erosion of landlines resulting in a lot of unused copper loops, lack of copper loops is a small issue. Some residential CLECs went out of business because they had broken business models. Some residential CLECs became successful business CLECs as well, check out Earthlink (NASDAQ: ELNK). The controlling issues are more financial than regulatory. We have had the same regulatory regime for almost a decade. Any prudent DSL provider, ILEC or CLEC, should have plans for a transition to copper, but the copper network still has useful life in it for residential CLECs as well as other markets. Fletcher On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Fletcher,
Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ "making stuff up". In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net>wrote:
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still "residential focused" CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed.
What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market.
regards, Fletcher
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
On 13-02-04 14:57, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops.
The Bell Canada tariff on ADSL acess (5410) uses the following terminology: (GAS = wholesale DSL service operated by incumbent telco that provides PPPoE (there are some variations that provide ethernet connection) between end users and independent ISPs) ## (h) GAS Access will only be provisioned over Company provided primary exchange service, unbundled local loops used to provide CLEC primary exchange service, or dry loops. ## "Dry Loop" refers to a local loop that has no phone service attached to it (either telco or CLEC) but has the telco's wholesale DSL service. As I recall, it is tariffed separatly and differently from unbundled local loops. (If an ISP has its own DSLAM, it would need an unbundled local loop since it isn't buying the wholesale DSL service from Bell). In the USA, is access to the last mile copper mandated only for CLECs or can a company that is not a CLEC (aka: an ISP) also get access to the copper between CO and homes ?
Jean-Francois; The only regulatory regime I am familiar with is the US and the original poster specifically specified the US regime. In the US, only CLECs have the right to order UNEs. Many ISPs became CLECs for that reason. In the states in which we operate, becoming a CLEC is a minimal burden. Being a CLEC has the added advantage of access to utility poles. regards, Fletcher On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 13-02-04 14:57, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops.
The Bell Canada tariff on ADSL acess (5410) uses the following terminology: (GAS = wholesale DSL service operated by incumbent telco that provides PPPoE (there are some variations that provide ethernet connection) between end users and independent ISPs)
## (h) GAS Access will only be provisioned over Company provided primary exchange service, unbundled local loops used to provide CLEC primary exchange service, or dry loops. ##
"Dry Loop" refers to a local loop that has no phone service attached to it (either telco or CLEC) but has the telco's wholesale DSL service. As I recall, it is tariffed separatly and differently from unbundled local loops. (If an ISP has its own DSLAM, it would need an unbundled local loop since it isn't buying the wholesale DSL service from Bell).
In the USA, is access to the last mile copper mandated only for CLECs or can a company that is not a CLEC (aka: an ISP) also get access to the copper between CO and homes ?
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
Scott;
I apologize. You could very well sincerely not realize you are wrong. Obviously, erroneous thinking is not the same as making things up.
Thanks, I think ;) I looked back and what I had written and I will say that I could have been expressed it along these lines; "It would be difficult in most RBOC territories today today offer residential scale broadband access because of the lack of good UNE loops. This is further complicated by the fact that in many territories local number are too expensive for the relatively low density of a given area and that retards the uptake of residential CLEC voice services."
However, it is not good that bad information is out there and it should be corrected. First you refer to them as "dry copper" or "dry pair" which has no regulatory meaning. I don't know if using the wrong term is part of the reason you have had difficulty ordering them. The proper term is Unbundled Network Elements(UNE) copper loops. UNEs are the elements the ILECs are required to sell to CLECs. There are a variety of different types of UNE loops. The most accurate way to identify them is probably referring to an ILEC wholesale tariff filed on a state-by-state basis. The FCC defines Section 251 requirements, but individual state PUCs administer the tariffs for their locations.
Agreed, dry pair is trade speak and not sufficiently accurate for a discussion on telco regulations. UNE is the correct term and we are both talking about the same item.
Second, going to any document by the NTCA, an advocacy organization, for information on this topic is a mistake for obvious bias reasons.
True, the NTCA is an advocacy group but they're also a communication group that tracks regulatory changes for the industry. I'll try and pull up the relevant documentation.
The controlling documents are the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act), the FCC's Triennial Review Order[s](TRO), various ILEC tariffs and the individual InterConnection Agreements(ICA) between ILECs and CLECs. Under the Telco Act, UNE loops are a Section 251 requirement. The FCC has primary responsibility for administering Section 251 requirements and the FCC's rules for doing so are put forth in the TROs. The last TROs were released in 2004, so that would be the last time "the rules changed" as you put it. So there has not been a recent change in the rules resulting in residential CLEC demise.
I don't know why I gave you any reason to think I was referring to anything but the Supreme Court refusing to even hear the 2004 case as the primary regulatory shift for CLECs. That was the last year we had a formal change in Federal regulation, though its certainly not the end of cases and the FCC has a docket of CLEC/ILEC cases pretty much every week and those have been consistently in favor of the ILEC side of things. There are also state level actions and inactions that have made the climate harsher for CLECs.
Third, it is true that an ILEC is not required to add capacity. However, it is hard for me to believe anyone would say with a straight face that any residential CLECs went out of business primarily because ILECs are not required to add copper. In a period where there is steady erosion of landlines resulting in a lot of unused copper loops, lack of copper loops is a small issue. Some residential CLECs went out of business because they had broken business models. Some residential CLECs became successful business CLECs as well, check out Earthlink (NASDAQ: ELNK). The controlling issues are more financial than regulatory. We have had the same regulatory regime for almost a decade.
Earthlink is in the residential business because that's where they came from. They've been busy buying and building commercial services ever since the Mindspring merger. If it weren't for the fact that ITC-Deltacom ended up with a poor reputation that's what their name would likely be today.
Any prudent DSL provider, ILEC or CLEC, should have plans for a transition to copper, but the copper network still has useful life in it for residential CLECs as well as other markets.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Should this have been "a transition from copper"?
Fletcher
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Fletcher,
Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ "making stuff up". In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and because the rules never required the ILEC to add capacity once they were used up.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net>wrote:
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still "residential focused" CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs) is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed.
What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more lucrative to sell to businesses, but I don't think there is a correlation with residential getting more difficult. We used to be 75%/25% residential/business and are now 45%/55% business, but that reflects the *rapid* growth of the business market.
regards, Fletcher
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the residential space. In fact, the only state in the US that I still see any residentially focused CLECs is Texas which tells me there is something about the regulations in that state that makes it more feasible.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
So let me be clear, here, because I'm semi-married to this idea... You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical per-sub handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because a) the circuits can't be built reliably, b) the circuits won't run reliably over the long run, c) if something *does break*, it's hard or expensive to determine where, or d) each side will say it's the other side's fault, and things won't get fixed? I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so I assume you have to mean (d).
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could charge you a lot more money for. You assert a technical reason? 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 Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
So let me be clear, here, because I'm semi-married to this idea...
You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical per-sub handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because
I'm saying you can't build a working business model off of layer 1 connections as your primary offering in almost all cases for a muni network. I am hedging my bet here because I don't know your city's topology, density, growth, goals or a hundred other factors that might make you the 1 exception to the rule.
a) the circuits can't be built reliably, b) the circuits won't run reliably over the long run, c) if something *does break*, it's hard or expensive to determine where, or d) each side will say it's the other side's fault, and things won't get fixed?
Let me see if I can explain it, since clearly I'm not getting my thoughts
down in my emails well enough. a) You WILL have physical layer issues. Some of these issues will be related to the initial construction of the fiber. b) Other problems will because of changes that occur over time. These could be weather related (especially for aerial cable), but also vehicle hits to fiber cabinets, and occasionally fires. Depending on your location earthquakes, flooding, and other extreme "weather" may also be a factor. c) No, WHEN something breaks it is hard and expensive to figure out where. This is true even if you're the layer 2 provider but it gets you out of the problem of it works $A_provider_gear but not $B_provider_gear. You're going to drive yourself nuts troubleshooting connections IF you do sign up several partners especially if they choose different technologies. d) No, it will always be your fault until you can prove its not. If you don't know how to troubleshoot the technology your L2 partners are using how can you ever do anything but accept their word that they have everything set up correctly?
I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so I assume you have to mean (d).
There are lots of differences, especially related to troubleshooting. Remember, all of these devices are doing phase modulation (QAM, QPSK, etc) so a simple OTDR test (which is similar to checking SNR on a RF system) doesn't show many of the problems that prevent data connectivity on high speed connections.
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could charge you a lot more money for.
You assert a technical reason?
Most of this is because the ILECs have gotten the regulations changed but they successfully used some legitimate technical reasons (and other less legitimate arguments) to get those rules changed.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
---- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical per-sub handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because
I'm saying you can't build a working business model off of layer 1 connections as your primary offering in almost all cases for a muni network. I am hedging my bet here because I don't know your city's topology, density, growth, goals or a hundred other factors that might make you the 1 exception to the rule.
Oh. I'm not trying to. I'm trying to design and build a fiber plant that will *support* both L1 point-to-point circuits for clients who want those, and L1 optical subscriber pair handoffs to ISPs who are either large enough, or technically inclined to want to take those and do their own access gear either for RFoG GPON Multiplexing reasons, or whatever else have you. My primary service will be to run my own OLT and supply ONTs to subs, and hand off aggregated 10/40GE over fiber to the ISPs in my colo (or somewhere else in my city, if they want to do it themselves; there *is*, after all, going to be fiber to there :-).
Let me see if I can explain it, since clearly I'm not getting my thoughts down in my emails well enough.
You've done it now.
a) You WILL have physical layer issues. Some of these issues will be related to the initial construction of the fiber.
Sure.
b) Other problems will because of changes that occur over time. These could be weather related (especially for aerial cable), but also vehicle hits to fiber cabinets, and occasionally fires. Depending on your location earthquakes, flooding, and other extreme "weather" may also be a factor.
Mostly flooding. We're 15' AMSL. Everything else, though, will be completely below-grade, and we don't freeze, and I assume how much non- backhoe fade you get can be directly related to how much you pay for the build? And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
c) No, WHEN something breaks it is hard and expensive to figure out where. This is true even if you're the layer 2 provider but it gets you out of the problem of it works $A_provider_gear but not $B_provider_gear. You're going to drive yourself nuts troubleshooting connections IF you do sign up several partners especially if they choose different technologies.
It would appear that opinions vary on this point. You've clearly had your hands on some of the gear, so I'm not discounting your opinion by any means, but it seems that this may vary based on, among other things, how well one engineers the plant up front. This will *not* be a lowest-bidder contract. Or I won't do it.
d) No, it will always be your fault until you can prove its not. If you don't know how to troubleshoot the technology your L2 partners are using how can you ever do anything but accept their word that they have everything set up correctly?
As Owen notes, their hot-potatoing it will simply cost them more money, so they have incentive to be cooperative in finding these problems, and that helps almost an order of magnitude.
I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so I assume you have to mean (d).
There are lots of differences, especially related to troubleshooting. Remember, all of these devices are doing phase modulation (QAM, QPSK, etc) so a simple OTDR test (which is similar to checking SNR on a RF system) doesn't show many of the problems that prevent data connectivity on high speed connections.
No, but I'm pretty sure my Fluke rep will be happy to sell me boxes that *will* test for that stuff, and I will have a contractor to back me up. Likely a division of whomever did the build, who will have reason to want it to run well, as I'll have their name plastered all over everything as well. :-)
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could charge you a lot more money for.
You assert a technical reason?
Most of this is because the ILECs have gotten the regulations changed but they successfully used some legitimate technical reasons (and other less legitimate arguments) to get those rules changed.
In my experience of watching it go by, nearly every reason that an ILEC has ever given for wanting something made illegal which would impact their competitive position was made up, to a greater or lesser degree. Many of them were public companies, and had open access imposed on them (some would say unfairly; I waver), and it's *expected* that this would be the case, but still... 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
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with flooding (for your scenario since your electronics will be centralized) is mainly that it causes things to move around inside the cable runs and depending on water flow you can end up with a lot of problems with increased scattering if the cable gets stretched.
c) No, WHEN something breaks it is hard and expensive to figure out where. This is true even if you're the layer 2 provider but it gets you out of the problem of it works $A_provider_gear but not $B_provider_gear. You're going to drive yourself nuts troubleshooting connections IF you do sign up several partners especially if they choose different technologies.
It would appear that opinions vary on this point. You've clearly had your hands on some of the gear, so I'm not discounting your opinion by any means, but it seems that this may vary based on, among other things, how well one engineers the plant up front. This will *not* be a lowest-bidder contract. Or I won't do it.
Its not just the initial install. Its that every time you do anything new like adding in a new L2 vendor or technology or hook up a new end user. Glass doesn't suffer from ingress noise like RF driven systems but the plant itself is just as sensitive to physical damage and is more sensitive to stretching than coax or twisted pair.
d) No, it will always be your fault until you can prove its not. If you don't know how to troubleshoot the technology your L2 partners are using how can you ever do anything but accept their word that they have everything set up correctly?
As Owen notes, their hot-potatoing it will simply cost them more money, so they have incentive to be cooperative in finding these problems, and that helps almost an order of magnitude.
Respectfully the guys that will be doing the hot potato shuffle won't be the owners or even people who have that much technical understanding. They'll be installers that work on the end user and their skill set is on par with the guys who do contract installs for security systems and Dish Network/Direct TV. They don't care if their boss losses money, they don't care if you lose money, all they want to is keep their install count up since that's how they get paid. If a given install is problematic and they can shift the responsibility to someone else they (as a group) will. I'm not suggesting that everyone who does that kind of work is unskilled or uncaring but as a group that's what you get.
I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so I assume you have to mean (d).
There are lots of differences, especially related to troubleshooting. Remember, all of these devices are doing phase modulation (QAM, QPSK, etc) so a simple OTDR test (which is similar to checking SNR on a RF system) doesn't show many of the problems that prevent data connectivity on high speed connections.
No, but I'm pretty sure my Fluke rep will be happy to sell me boxes that *will* test for that stuff, and I will have a contractor to back me up.
No, actually they won't because Fluke doesn't sell a DOCSIS analyzer (for RFoG) nor a PON analyzer. You'll need a separate meter (for several thousand dollars) for each kind of technology you want to be able to troubleshoot. For example, to handle modulated RF (RFoG) you'd use a JDSU (or Sunrise or Trilithic). Fluke is a very basic OTDR tool and they don't address the various layer 2 technologies.
Likely a division of whomever did the build, who will have reason to want it to run well, as I'll have their name plastered all over everything as well. :-)
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could charge you a lot more money for.
You assert a technical reason?
Most of this is because the ILECs have gotten the regulations changed but they successfully used some legitimate technical reasons (and other less legitimate arguments) to get those rules changed.
In my experience of watching it go by, nearly every reason that an ILEC has ever given for wanting something made illegal which would impact their competitive position was made up, to a greater or lesser degree.
Many of them were public companies, and had open access imposed on them (some would say unfairly; I waver), and it's *expected* that this would be the case, but still...
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with flooding (for your scenario since your electronics will be centralized) is mainly that it causes things to move around inside the cable runs and depending on water flow you can end up with a lot of problems with increased scattering if the cable gets stretched.
Yeah. The cable has like 2 or 3 more layers, including a strength member, above the cladding, though, right?
It would appear that opinions vary on this point. You've clearly had your hands on some of the gear, so I'm not discounting your opinion by any means, but it seems that this may vary based on, among other things, how well one engineers the plant up front. This will *not* be a lowest-bidder contract. Or I won't do it.
Its not just the initial install. Its that every time you do anything new like adding in a new L2 vendor or technology or hook up a new end user.
Since I plan to drop and terminal all the tails on the initial install, "hook up a new user" amounts to "plug an optical patch cord into a wall jack". Assuming the termination of the fiber in the wall jack was tested for level and blur at install time, that will hopefully not be too big a deal.
Glass doesn't suffer from ingress noise like RF driven systems but the plant itself is just as sensitive to physical damage and is more sensitive to stretching than coax or twisted pair.
I thought all that stuff had been mitigated by now to make aerial plant practical; no?
As Owen notes, their hot-potatoing it will simply cost them more money, so they have incentive to be cooperative in finding these problems, and that helps almost an order of magnitude.
Respectfully the guys that will be doing the hot potato shuffle won't be the owners or even people who have that much technical understanding.
Well, in my particular instance, I don't actually think that will be true; I expect to be dealing with either the guy who cuts my check, or the technical lead who works for him, most of the time. I would be pretty surprised to find that the ISP I have in mind as my first mover has more than 10 employees.
They'll be installers that work on the end user and their skill set is on par with the guys who do contract installs for security systems and Dish Network/Direct TV. They don't care if their boss loses money, they don't care if you lose money, all they want to is keep their install count up since that's how they get paid. If a given install is problematic and they can shift the responsibility to someone else they (as a group) will. I'm not suggesting that everyone who does that kind of work is unskilled or uncaring but as a group that's what you get.
In general, I think that's true. In a city of 11000 people, I am not sure that I think it will actually work out that way in practice.
No, but I'm pretty sure my Fluke rep will be happy to sell me boxes that *will* test for that stuff, and I will have a contractor to back me up.
No, actually they won't because Fluke doesn't sell a DOCSIS analyzer (for RFoG) nor a PON analyzer. You'll need a separate meter (for several thousand dollars) for each kind of technology you want to be able to troubleshoot. For example, to handle modulated RF (RFoG) you'd use a JDSU (or Sunrise or Trilithic). Fluke is a very basic OTDR tool and they don't address the various layer 2 technologies.
Well, my snap reaction to this is "what the city's responsibility is for dark fiber pairs is spelled out in the contract, and things past that test regime are the responsibility of the L2 provider", but I gather you don't think that will be good enough. Why is protocol my responsibility? *It's a dark pair of glass fibers*. If it meets level and dispersion specs, how the hell is it still my problem? 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 Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with flooding (for your scenario since your electronics will be centralized) is mainly that it causes things to move around inside the cable runs and depending on water flow you can end up with a lot of problems with increased scattering if the cable gets stretched.
Yeah. The cable has like 2 or 3 more layers, including a strength member, above the cladding, though, right?
Yep, but glass is much (an order of magnitude) more sensitive to stretching than coax or twisted pair (electrons don't mind, but light diffracts). That's not to say that aerial isn't doable it is, but you're going to be doing maintenance on your plant most years.
It would appear that opinions vary on this point. You've clearly had your hands on some of the gear, so I'm not discounting your opinion by any means, but it seems that this may vary based on, among other things, how well one engineers the plant up front. This will *not* be a lowest-bidder contract. Or I won't do it.
Its not just the initial install. Its that every time you do anything new like adding in a new L2 vendor or technology or hook up a new end user.
Since I plan to drop and terminal all the tails on the initial install, "hook up a new user" amounts to "plug an optical patch cord into a wall jack".
Assuming the termination of the fiber in the wall jack was tested for level and blur at install time, that will hopefully not be too big a deal.
How is it tested? Just looking at it with an OTDR meter doesn't mean it will work with RFoG or PON.
As Owen notes, their hot-potatoing it will simply cost them more money, so they have incentive to be cooperative in finding these problems, and that helps almost an order of magnitude.
Respectfully the guys that will be doing the hot potato shuffle won't be the owners or even people who have that much technical understanding.
Well, in my particular instance, I don't actually think that will be true; I expect to be dealing with either the guy who cuts my check, or the technical lead who works for him, most of the time.
I would be pretty surprised to find that the ISP I have in mind as my first mover has more than 10 employees.
Sure, but are those 10 guys the only ones who do end user installs? If so then you will hopefully have fewer problems, but that depends on how good those 10 people are and the kinds of technologies you're working on.
They'll be installers that work on the end user and their skill set is on par with the guys who do contract installs for security systems and Dish Network/Direct TV. They don't care if their boss loses money, they don't care if you lose money, all they want to is keep their install count up since that's how they get paid. If a given install is problematic and they can shift the responsibility to someone else they (as a group) will. I'm not suggesting that everyone who does that kind of work is unskilled or uncaring but as a group that's what you get.
In general, I think that's true. In a city of 11000 people, I am not sure that I think it will actually work out that way in practice.
I'd disagree, that's definitely of the scale where you'll have 4-5 people who do this kind of contract installs on a regular basis. Now, your ISP may choose to not use one of them, but they're certainly out there.
No, but I'm pretty sure my Fluke rep will be happy to sell me boxes that *will* test for that stuff, and I will have a contractor to back me up.
No, actually they won't because Fluke doesn't sell a DOCSIS analyzer (for RFoG) nor a PON analyzer. You'll need a separate meter (for several thousand dollars) for each kind of technology you want to be able to troubleshoot. For example, to handle modulated RF (RFoG) you'd use a JDSU (or Sunrise or Trilithic). Fluke is a very basic OTDR tool and they don't address the various layer 2 technologies.
Well, my snap reaction to this is "what the city's responsibility is for dark fiber pairs is spelled out in the contract, and things past that test regime are the responsibility of the L2 provider", but I gather you don't think that will be good enough.
Why is protocol my responsibility?
*It's a dark pair of glass fibers*. If it meets level and dispersion specs, how the hell is it still my problem?
That's what I've been trying to tell you. You're basing your idea of troubleshooting on AM or FM modulation when all of the broadband connectivity is PM (phase modulation). That means your light power meter from Fluke can tell you everything is good when a specific connection is in fact unusable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulation Take a look at the write up a friend of mine did on a QAM analyzer. This one is specifically for cable systems, but the concept of phase constellations works the same in any PM set up. http://volpefirm.com/tech-review-devisor-s7000-tv-analyzer/ This PDF (search for constellation) describes how phase modulation is used in EPON: http://www.broadcom.com/docs/features/DOCSIS_EoC_EPONinChina.pdf
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
With regards to the layer 1 vs layer 2 arguments: At the regulatory level, it isn't about what layer is provided, it is more a question to ensure that a neutral provider of last mile only sells whoelsale and provides no retail services that compete against other retailers who buy access to that fibre. (no undue preference onto itself). In Canada, we have TPIA regulations for 3rd party access to DOCSIS cable systems. This is actually done at L3. And while it works, there are a number of issues related to a cableco acting as a L3 wholesaler. (IPs assigned to end user belong to the ISP, but are provisioned by the cableco's DHCP server etc). PPPoE/DSL systems provide layer2 tunnels which shift much of the respnsability to the ISP (IP assignements etc). However, PPPoE does not allow multicast. (and telcos don't want ISPs to use compete against their own IPTV systems). Nevertheless, a number if ISPs are starting their own IPTV services over unicast delivery. So when a municipality wants to setup a modern broadband system (which raises property values and attracts businesses to the town), it needs to consider how the system will be used. I don't think it is enough to "build it and they will come" (aka: layer 1 dark fibre). You risk it being greatly underused if small ISPs can't afford to connect to it, and incumbents are in court trying to destroy the project instead of taking advantage of it. Are there examples where a muni fibre system in the USA was adopted by incumbents ?
Scott: While we less than ten thousand FTTH subs, our OSP operational costs are much less with fiber than copper. Our maintenance costs, in order of greatest to least, have been locating, cable moves (i.e. bridge project), monitoring digs, and damage to fiber (rodents and vehicles that hit peds). We have had many more ONT issues than fiber issues, and most fiber issues can be resolved by cleaning both sides of the fiber (customer and head end). And we've had to replace the 50' patch cable between the OLTG and optical splitter a two of three times. While finger-pointing is always a risk when multiple players are involved in delivering any service, I don't perceive that as being as much of a problem as you think it will be. With the right fiber testing gear, any suspected problems can pretty quickly be identified. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:55 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
So let me be clear, here, because I'm semi-married to this idea...
You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical per-sub handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because
I'm saying you can't build a working business model off of layer 1 connections as your primary offering in almost all cases for a muni network. I am hedging my bet here because I don't know your city's topology, density, growth, goals or a hundred other factors that might make you the 1 exception to the rule.
a) the circuits can't be built reliably, b) the circuits won't run reliably over the long run, c) if something *does break*, it's hard or expensive to determine where,
or
d) each side will say it's the other side's fault, and things won't get fixed?
Let me see if I can explain it, since clearly I'm not getting my thoughts down in my emails well enough.
a) You WILL have physical layer issues. Some of these issues will be related to the initial construction of the fiber. b) Other problems will because of changes that occur over time. These could be weather related (especially for aerial cable), but also vehicle hits to fiber cabinets, and occasionally fires. Depending on your location earthquakes, flooding, and other extreme "weather" may also be a factor. c) No, WHEN something breaks it is hard and expensive to figure out where. This is true even if you're the layer 2 provider but it gets you out of the problem of it works $A_provider_gear but not $B_provider_gear. You're going to drive yourself nuts troubleshooting connections IF you do sign up several partners especially if they choose different technologies. d) No, it will always be your fault until you can prove its not. If you don't know how to troubleshoot the technology your L2 partners are using how can you ever do anything but accept their word that they have everything set up correctly?
I can't see any difference between building it for their L2 access box and my own. I simply don't believe (b). (c) seems questionable as well, so I assume you have to mean (d).
There are lots of differences, especially related to troubleshooting. Remember, all of these devices are doing phase modulation (QAM, QPSK, etc) so a simple OTDR test (which is similar to checking SNR on a RF system) doesn't show many of the problems that prevent data connectivity on high speed connections.
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Certainly: because you have to get them from incumbents, who don't want you to use a cheap service to provide yourself something they could charge you a lot more money for.
You assert a technical reason?
Most of this is because the ILECs have gotten the regulations changed but they successfully used some legitimate technical reasons (and other less legitimate arguments) to get those rules changed.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Frank, I certainly agree that fiber plant is in general easier than copper plant to maintain. My main concern is that in this case Jay is considering allowing not only different vendors but different technologies on the same fiber plant. That, in a small system without a ton of technical experience, is a very difficult scenario mainly because the city will almost invariably under price their wholesale (layer 1, 2, or 3) rates and the ISPs that operate in these situations are also usually quite shallow in terms or technical skill set. Its not a matter of it being impossible, but its much more difficult to just break even in this scenario. I'd personally advocate taking the approach that San Diego took when they built their network (which IIRC they don't offer access to) several years back. The buried all their fiber plant but in trenches that allow easy (relatively) access and they lease space in those runs so if private operators want to pull their own fiber to some or all of the places the city reaches they can without having to worry about supporting unfamiliar technology on their plant. Our maintenance costs, in order of greatest to least, have been locating,
cable moves (i.e. bridge project), monitoring digs, and damage to fiber (rodents and vehicles that hit peds). We have had many more ONT issues than fiber issues, and most fiber issues can be resolved by cleaning both sides of the fiber (customer and head end). And we've had to replace the 50' patch cable between the OLTG and optical splitter a two of three times.
While finger-pointing is always a risk when multiple players are involved in delivering any service, I don't perceive that as being as much of a problem as you think it will be. With the right fiber testing gear, any suspected problems can pretty quickly be identified.
Frank
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 13-02-04 15:46, Scott Helms wrote:
I certainly agree that fiber plant is in general easier than copper plant to maintain. My main concern is that in this case Jay is considering allowing not only different vendors but different technologies on the same fiber plant.
If you are strictly a layer 1 provider, I would assume that you have setup properly documented procedures and responsabilities in case of faults. Perhaps the ISP is responsible for debugging their problems and if they can show a layer 1 problem, then the city steps in, disconnects the strand at both ends and uses its own L1 equipment to test the strand. If the rules are clear, then ISPs would choose OLT and ONT equipment which provides remote debugging capabilities since physical visits to the city owned aggregation point will be difficult.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 13-02-04 15:46, Scott Helms wrote:
I certainly agree that fiber plant is in general easier than copper plant to maintain. My main concern is that in this case Jay is considering allowing not only different vendors but different technologies on the same fiber plant.
If you are strictly a layer 1 provider, I would assume that you have setup properly documented procedures and responsabilities in case of faults.
Operationally you're never gonna get here. Installers are guys making $200 bucks an install whether it takes them 30 minutes or 4 hours. Most major operators (all I've worked with) struggle to get their own employees to do troubleshooting and installs correctly. We actually had to write software to ensure that installers are doing basic verification of levels before they leave home.
Perhaps the ISP is responsible for debugging their problems and if they can show a layer 1 problem, then the city steps in, disconnects the strand at both ends and uses its own L1 equipment to test the strand.
If the rules are clear, then ISPs would choose OLT and ONT equipment which provides remote debugging capabilities since physical visits to the city owned aggregation point will be difficult.
In really small numbers this is OK. The problem is that there seems to be a thought that a given network will have more than 4-5 dark fiber connections and that they will be a part of the pay back. Getting staff to even log into the web client of the OLT is generally problematic since the guys who do installs aren't normally allowed or even capable of safely using the EMS console. If they can even get the "right" version of Java running to get the JIMC working :( -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 13-02-04 15:46, Scott Helms wrote:
I certainly agree that fiber plant is in general easier than copper
Unless it's a really small shop, Scott is right that the installers don't touch the EMS. Most don't want to look at it. The good news is that fiber problems are rare, electronics more often. We budget $200/home for a FTTH cutover (install ONT, remove DSL or cable modem, connect CPE to connections off of ONT). Frank -----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:42 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote: plant
to maintain. My main concern is that in this case Jay is considering allowing not only different vendors but different technologies on the same fiber plant.
If you are strictly a layer 1 provider, I would assume that you have setup properly documented procedures and responsabilities in case of faults.
Operationally you're never gonna get here. Installers are guys making $200 bucks an install whether it takes them 30 minutes or 4 hours. Most major operators (all I've worked with) struggle to get their own employees to do troubleshooting and installs correctly. We actually had to write software to ensure that installers are doing basic verification of levels before they leave home.
Perhaps the ISP is responsible for debugging their problems and if they can show a layer 1 problem, then the city steps in, disconnects the strand at both ends and uses its own L1 equipment to test the strand.
If the rules are clear, then ISPs would choose OLT and ONT equipment which provides remote debugging capabilities since physical visits to the city owned aggregation point will be difficult.
In really small numbers this is OK. The problem is that there seems to be a thought that a given network will have more than 4-5 dark fiber connections and that they will be a part of the pay back. Getting staff to even log into the web client of the OLT is generally problematic since the guys who do installs aren't normally allowed or even capable of safely using the EMS console. If they can even get the "right" version of Java running to get the JIMC working :( -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
Zayo (nee AboveNet/MFN), Sunesys, Allied Fiber, FiberTech Networks, and a dozen smaller dark fiber providers work this way today, with nice healthy profitable business. Granted, none of them are in the residential space today, but I don't see any reason why the prem being residential would make the model fail. Plenty of small cities sell dark as well, at least until the incumbant carriers scare/bribe the legislatures into outlawing it. I think that's evidence it works well, they know they can't compete with a muni network, so they are trying to block it with legal and lobbying efforts. They all cost a lot more than would make sense for residential, but most of that is that they lack the economies of scale that going to every residence would bring. Their current density of customers is simply too low. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the prem. They would be responsible for insuring a reasonable performance of the fiber between those two end points.
Been tried multiple times and I've never seen it work in the US, Canada, Europe, or Latin America. That's not to say it can't work, but there lots of reasons why it doesn't and I don't think anyone has suggested anything here that I haven't already seen fail.
Zayo (nee AboveNet/MFN), Sunesys, Allied Fiber, FiberTech Networks, and a dozen smaller dark fiber providers work this way today, with nice healthy profitable business. Granted, none of them are in the residential space today, but I don't see any reason why the prem being residential would make the model fail.
All of these guys do sell dark fiber AND other services including their own L3 offerings. I'm not telling anyone to avoid selling dark fiber. I'm telling you that its not what you can, in the vast majority of the cases, build as your primary offering. Your examples really support my stance much more than yours.
Plenty of small cities sell dark as well, at least until the incumbant carriers scare/bribe the legislatures into outlawing it. I think that's evidence it works well, they know they can't compete with a muni network, so they are trying to block it with legal and lobbying efforts.
Most of the state legislation (in fact, I can't think of an exception to this) is specifically aimed at preventing muni networks from offering layer 2 and layer 3 services. I can't say that there isn't an exception to this, but in 45+ states there isn't anything on the books on a dark fiber network owned by a city.
They all cost a lot more than would make sense for residential, but most of that is that they lack the economies of scale that going to every residence would bring. Their current density of customers is simply too low.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure dark muni-network, the muni would run the fiber into the prem to a patch panel, and stop at that point. I believe for fiber it should be inside the prem, not outside. The same would apply for both residential and commercial.
I'd argue that the demarc needs to be outside. There are certain advantages to having easy access to the demarcation when troubleshooting, without the resident needing to be home to provide access. It also simplifies drop installation, since the details of outdoor drops are quite different than those of indoor cabling. The SP of choice can charge the customer for the demarc extension on installation, at which point the customer owns the extension just like they do for DSL, T1, etc...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher" <jason@thebaughers.com>
The SP of choice can charge the customer for the demarc extension on installation, at which point the customer owns the extension just like they do for DSL, T1, etc...
Except that that means you have to let them into your lock box to unplug it. Do they make two-layer demarcs for 3-pr optical, like they do for copper? 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
I'm pretty sure they do, although I can't point you to one without doing some checking. I'm assuming you want something to keep them out of the network side where the splice tray is, but let them access the customer side? Around here, the network side isn't so much locked as just secured with a screw that takes a security wrench. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Baugher" <jason@thebaughers.com>
The SP of choice can charge the customer for the demarc extension on installation, at which point the customer owns the extension just like they do for DSL, T1, etc...
Except that that means you have to let them into your lock box to unplug it. Do they make two-layer demarcs for 3-pr optical, like they do for copper?
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
This has been a fascinating discussion :) While we don't quite qualify as a small city, we do have quite a dispersion of coverage across our residence halls and general campus. There is an ongoing RFP process to build out our own CATV distribution (or more generally, to avoid the resident CATV provider charge monopoly). Initial competitors included incumbent cable (largely RF coax), new providers (also RF coax), and content-only providers (either assuming we do distribution over our fiber, or add another distribution component), to IPTV solutions (using existing network). IPTV requires a "very co-operative" multicast distribution, which we currently do not have (not exclusive vendor gear end-to-end); it needs to be designed that way from the beginning as opposed to bolted onto the end. RF CATV (or HFC distribution) requires some unique fiber plant... notably AFC terminations as opposed to the UPCs we have for data. And you have to consider one-way content provider network, versus two-way feedback (and the associated set-top box complications we're trying to avoid). And throw in the phone for the other "triple play" component, and you're generally talking PoE[+]. Even in a captive audience, the possibilities are challenging :) Jeff
Word to dropping docsis science on NANOG. On Feb 2, 2013 3:34 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
I hope I said "E7"; it's what I meant to say. Yes, I wasn't going to stop at Calix; I'm just juggling budgetary type numbers at the moment; I'll have 3 or 4 quotes before I go to press. It's a 36 month project just to beginning of build, at this point, likely.
Assuming I get the gig at all.
The E7 is a good shelf, so that's a decent starting point. I'd also talk with Zhone, Allied Telesys, Adtran, and Cisco if for no other reason but get the best pricing you can. I'd also focus much more on your cost per port than the density since your uptake rate will be driven by economics long before port density and how much space your gear takes becomes an issue.
2) I have no idea who told you this, but this is completely and utterly incorrect in nationwide terms. If you have a specific layer 3 provder in mind that tells you they want a GPON hand off then that's fine, but ISPs in general don't know what GPON is and have no gear to terminate that kind of connection.
Other people here, said it. If nothing else, it's certainly what the largest nationwide FTTH provider is provisioning, and I suspect it serves more passings than anything else; possibly than everything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The largest PON offering in the US is Verizon's FIOS, but AFAIK they don't interconnect with anyone at layer 2 and their layer 3 fiber connections are either Packet Over SONET, Gig E(most common), or very occasionally still ATM. I have heard of a few instances where they'd buy existing GPON networks but I've never heard of them cross connecting like this even with operators that they do significant business with in other ways.
But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just
block-upconvert,
I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout.
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Scott: Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE? Frank -----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM To: NANOG Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout.
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Don't know what frequency they use but ppm.co.uk does all the way to 14ghz (our ku band) over dwdm..
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> Date: 02/02/2013 10:10 PM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Scott Helms' <khelms@zcorum.com>,NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband Scott: Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE? Frank -----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM To: NANOG Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout.
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Frank, I don't know off hand, but it ought to be easy even though Ethernet uses a wider "channel" than most PON set ups. I'll do some asking tomorrow. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
Scott:
Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as ActiveE?
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:30 PM To: NANOG Subject: Fwd: Rollup: Small City Municipal Broadband
But it doesn't matter either way, except in cross-connects between my MDF and my colo cages; except for GPONs apparent compatibility with RF CATV delivery (which I gather, but have not researched) is just block-upconvert, I don't care either way; there's no difference in the plant buildout.
This is not correct. DOCSIS is an MPEG stream over QAM or QPSK modulation and there is nothing about it that is compatible to any flavor of PON. In fact if you look at the various CableLabs standards you'll see DPoE ( http://www.cablelabs.com/dpoe/specifications/index.html) which lists how a DOCSIS system can inter-operate and provision an PON system. If you look at the two largest PON networks (FIOS and Uverse) you'll see the two different approaches to doing video with a PON architecture. Verizon is simply modulating a MPEG stream (this is block compatible to a cable plant, in fact its the same way that a HFC network functions) on a different color on the same fiber that they send their PON signalling. ATT takes another approach where they simply run IPTV over their PON network. I've listened to presentations from Verizon's VP of Engineering (at that time) for FIOS and he said their choice was driven by the technology available when they launched and they did modulated RF over their fiber instead of IPTV because that technology wasn't as mature when they started. Verizon's approach may be what someone was thinking of when they said that PON was compatible to cable signaling but that's not how it works.
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
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
participants (12)
-
Brandon Ross -
Fletcher Kittredge -
Frank Bulk -
Jason Baugher -
Jay Ashworth -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
Jeff Kell -
Joe Abley -
Leo Bicknell -
Scott Helms -
Tim Jackson -
Warren Bailey