Looking for some diversity in Alabama that does not involve ATT Fiber

Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long.

This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the
city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me
this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right
way..

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars

-Marcel

Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes.

Jimmy Hess wrote:

The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing
a fiber.
Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous
transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols.

Hm... i'm thinking one transceiver might malfunction and get
stuck/frozen in the "transmitting pulse" state, thus making
collision avoidance impossible, kind of like a shorted NIC on a shared
bus topology LAN, if just one subscriber's equipment happens to have
the right kind of failure, and that's neglecting the possibility of
intentional attack.

That is a real problem harming healthy development of broadband
Internet.

Passive optically-shared fiber networks don't sound so hot in that case.

Worse, as optical fibers are so cheap these days, SS (single star)
costs less than PON, because PON requires more complicated wiring.

Even worse, if people are deceived to recognize PON cheaper than
SS, it is impossible to have optical Internet in sparsely
populated area where optical Internet with SS is possible.

It can be said that PON was promoted by ILECs only to keep
their monopoly.

            Masataka Ohta

For those who didn't Google it.

http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en/knowledge-center/case-studies/amsterdam-city-fiber-project-analysis

We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in which it has been funded.

I suggest you look into USF in more detail.

Owen

USF is more of a free for all get ISPs to build in 80% of the locations that nobody would build in their right mind vs a mini monopoly model for l2 that I equate this with.

Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC,
basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber
builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling
rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld
applying unbundling rules.

Frank

Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say "If you don't
build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money."

The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again.

Owen

It's easy to ridicule the outliers, but the reality is that without USF the
majority of rural America that has Internet connectivity today wouldn't be
online. Yes, the price-cap carriers didn't do much in rural America, but
that's because there was little economic incentive to do so. Rate-of-return
carriers had the incentive to invest to earn a return, and they did that.
Many of the independents serve small communities and there is an element of
local pride in providing good service, and coops seek to serve their members
well, and do the same thing.

BTW, the FCC in their recent USF/ICC rulings has put a cap on the funding
per customer per year to $5K, so you won't see any more of the examples
listed in the Connected Planet article.

Frank

There's more than just the cost of fiber -- there's also the cost of
locating and taxes. Any maintenance if there's cuts and the costs if you
need to move the fiber for a project.

I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark
fiber options for a potential opportunity, but you have to remind yourself
don't have a *right* to know where *private* fiber is. It's not just the
physical property, the lack of documentation is a competitive advantage.

Frank

Considering that nearly all of this fiber runs over public right of
ways granted by the government (and sometimes through the use of
force by the government) it's not really private in the sense
that it would be if you bury fiber on land you own, or on land owned
by private individuals that have given you the right to run fiber
over or through the land through some voluntary exchange of value.
The public right of ways are created by the government as a public
good, and as such, I think the people have a right to know what
goes on in them.

(Actually, I was talking to a far more experienced friend the other day,
and he says that I should be able to contact the PUC and get exactly
this data, though often this, too, is somewhat difficult, so when
I re-start this project in a few months, that's the direction I
am going to attack first.)

Legal issues aside, treating a lack of documentation as a competitive
advantage makes any transaction vastly less efficient when you consider
both parties. I don't do business that way, and when I have a choice?
I don't do business with companies that do. Yes, it is legal, and
I am not suggesting that should change. But it's still an asshole move
that (from a perspective that considers both parties) destroys value.

I talked to the silicon valley power people (the operators of the Santa
Clara municipal fiber network) and they gave me a cost per mile
and a very detailed map (down to what side of the street the fiber
is on) - they wouldn't let me have a copy of the map that actually
documented the 'pull boxes', but still, it was enough information
that I could look at a building and tell pretty quickly if I was
wasting their time or not by getting a quote.

Talking to anyone else? no maps (or ridiculously vague maps)
and no cost per mile. I have to pick two endpoints and ask how much.

In my case, the endpoints depend almost entirely on how much it costs,
this means I waste a whole lot of salesperson time, and my own time.
It's a vastly less efficient way to do business.

That's the national definition of "broadband" that we're stuck with. To show
how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute "percent of
people with access to residential broadband", they do it on a per-county basis
- and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the
entire county counts.

Here in Maine, after seeing no strong proposals were being put forward by
others, we went after American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to
address a major lack of middle-mile infrastructure in the state.

Verizon had stopped making new investments in Maine for nearly 10 years
before pulling out and dumping a very old, very high maintenance copper
plant on Fairpoint. It was nearly criminal. Even worse, the Fairpoint
business plan was to continue to make large investments in copper ignoring
the realities that fiber is the only way to reach areas in a cost effective
way with such low population density.

So the University of Maine System and Great Works Internet prepared a
proposal for a public-private partnership to build out high capacity,
diverse, middle-mile infrastructure in Maine; and instead of the University
of Maine System or Great Works Internet managing it, we set it up so that a
new independent private company would be created to manage the
infrastructure and would be regulated as a public utility by the state;
very similar to the power company model. The result is that Maine now has
a new public utility classification of "dark fiber provider", and a company
building out that fiber.

It's called Maine Fiber Company:
http://www.mainefiberco.com/

The way Maine Fiber Company was setup was key. They're forbidden to offer
lit services; so they're a dark fiber only provider. They're require to
provide open access to the fiber at a fair and published rate to anyone
interested. Since the build was subsidized in part by Recovery Act funds,
the rates are low enough to encourage new services in the state.

One of the big problems in a state like Maine, and probably the majority of
the US, is that companies like Fairpoint and Time Warner Cable (the two
providers in Maine) end up building out redundant infrastructure at great
cost. Not redundant as in diverse, mind you, but literally running fiber
on the same utility polls, taking the same path, and both going down when
hit by a truck. Because areas of the state are very low population, they
often can't justify building a diverse path, so historically, one accident
could, and often has, taken out services for entire counties.

For the last few years MFC has been working to build out the high capacity
fiber rings described, and this summer we're finally at a point where
people can begin making use of MFC infrastructure.

For us, it means expanding our R&E network, MaineREN, to interconnect the
public universities in Maine. But for other service providers like Great
Works Internet, it means being able to survive as Fairpoint tries to push
out their competitors:

See the following link for that story "Fairpoint Bankruptcy Exacerbates
Circuit War":
http://www.pressherald.com/archive/fairpoint-bankruptcy-exacerbates-circuit-war_2009-11-12.html

I think the model setup in Maine is something really powerful. It will
drive down the price of delivering broadband significantly; it will open up
and promote competition so that consumers aren't stuck paying premium rates
for 20th century services, and it will provide much needed redundancy of
services. It also helps the bigger companies like Fairpoint and Time
Warner Cable if they're willing to make use of it (to
my recollection Fairpoint decided to not even bid for the build out; that's
how opposed they were to it)

Personally, I think this is a model that might be useful to replicate at a
municipal level as well: Dark fiber to the home as a public utility;
service provider of your choice to light it up. I think we're a few years
away from seeing that kind of effort, though, but after a few years of
seeing the effect that Maine Fiber Company will have on the state, there
might be people open to the idea.

For now, I'm thankful to have the middle-mile taken care of.

I know a few other states decided to go after recovery act money for
broadband; does anyone know if something like the Maine model is being
replicated anywhere else in the US?

I have discovered that the Federal School Lunch E-Rate program has built
out an entirely parallel fiber optic infrastructure in the USA, bypassing
telco fiber in many urban areas such as Los Angeles/Southern California.
There are now companies that exist solely to construct E-Rate fiber.
Sunesys is one such company.
E-Rate builds out fiber to schools and libraries, and the telcos apparently
have lobbied to ensure that a lateral to a library, for example, does not
become a local fiber hub, but the backbone fiber can be used by anyone,
with laterals built to order.
I do not work for any of these E-Rate companies, but have discovered their
potential use for connecting my network locations together.

out an entirely parallel fiber optic infrastructure in the USA

Lunch lady Doris has added a fiber splice kit to her collection of
hairnets...

Chuck

Owen DeLong wrote:

Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say "If you don't
build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money."

The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again.

Owen

Regulatory capture. Nobody is immune. The only effective maintenance treatment is periodic upheaval.

Joe

It varies from state to state ...

In Maine, we've run an E-rate filing consortium for several years that uses
E-rate funds and makes up the difference with a
state telecommunications tax so schools and libraries don't need to pay for
service.

Up until a year or two ago, Verizon was always contracted to provide
transport services exclusively; this was mainly T1 and ATM circuits.
Unfortunately, we were at a point where requests for more bandwidth than
1.5 Mbps were either being ignored, or being delivered via multiple T1
drops (hundreds of locations with dual T1 connections).

Of course this was a big cash flow for the ILEC, but our K12 schools being
connected at 1.5 or 3 Mbps in 2010 was not acceptable to us (especially
when they were still able to bill 500-800 a month per circuit).

In response to not being able to get movement on newer transport, we opened
up the process to competitive bid and got services from other providers in
the state depending on location; this resulted in Fairpoint delivering
Ethernet over copper services to remain competitive with Time Warner Cable
and others, and ultimately Fairpoint still was awarded the vast majority of
contracts; without the competitive process that wouldn't have happened.
Most upgrades were modest; 1.5M locations moved up to 10M, and ATM sites
moved to a verity of rates between 20 and 100M depending on the size of the
location, but an upgrade is an upgrade, and 1.5 Mbps today is unusable for
a single person, let alone an entire school.

With the build-out of MaineREN, our facilities based R&E network, we've
picked up a few large schools directly because it's cheaper to do so;
instead of schools receiving 100M service, we can deliver 1G for less
money, and re-direct funds to increase our transit capacity.

Maine Fiber Company and the MaineREN expansion will make that an attractive
option for more schools, but only a handful that are directly along the
route. To make sure Fairpoint, Time Warner, and others were able to
realize ROI, we signed multi-year contracts with them.

So in our case, E-rate has actually helped the private sector considerably,
and we don't see that really changing.

It's not in the interest of a state to compete with commercial providers if
they want the state to have a healthy market. It was also the primary
driver for us to push for the creation of a new public utility for dark
fiber rather than having the University own everything, which is the
direction most seem to go.

That said, every market is different.

The biggest problem I've seen is that as soon as "E-rate" is mentioned the
price inflates because providers start to drool over public funding.
Meanwhile everyone wants to pay lower taxes; seems counter-productive.

Don't get me started on "E-rate consultants", most of them take a % cut of
the awarded funds as compensation for filling out federal forms that can be
completed in 30 min. Thankfully that's been limited to some extent here by
the filing consortium, but I've heard stories from other states about some
of these guys pulling in close to 7 digits.

Joe,
     We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in Alabama from AT&T and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

Someone else to check is USCarrier (http://www.uscarrier.com/), they are a
smaller regional fiber transit provider I've had great experiences with in
the past. They only have a few POPs in Alabama though.

Good luck,

  -Scott