Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>

> Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
> copper services brought into the home.

Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
penetration.

What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.

If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
ISP field tech will have to work it.

*This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
is scared of.

No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the
drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
shouldn't do this.

Hopefully that explains my concern.

As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
per media type (rarely even more than 1).

I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.

However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.

Sure.

I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
any additional technologies anywhere.

Yup; I've been saying that right along. That's why I'd prefer to do the
install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.

Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.

That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
through on order.

If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
avoid any blurring of the lines.

I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that
opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to
offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
service would.

Had I misunderstood you?

Cheers,
-- jra

2

From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>

Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
copper services brought into the home.

Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through the
penetration.

What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a patchcord*.

Why? Why can't it be drop cable, or, require the technician to place
the patch cord in appropriate innerduct to protect it?

If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external* jackbox, then
that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop cable -- and the
ISP field tech will have to work it.

I disagree. It could be either a connectorized drop cable or a patch cord.
If it's a patch cord, you could require appropriate innerduct from the
external jackbox to the interior termination point.

*This* *will* cause the installation reliability problems that Scott
is scared of.

So you're afraid of installers handling fiber patch cords, or, you're
afraid of the patch cords not holding up after installed, or what?

No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the
drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

Given that set of requirements, I would opt for the interior jack box.

The muni should not be providing ONTs as part of it's L1 service and
their L1 service should be the same product for everyone, whether it's
Muni L2, Muni L3+L2, or any other service provider or set of providers
doing the L2, L3, etc.

There should be no active components in the muni L1 product.

I see no reason not to have the residential install tech that normally
extends the demarc and/or installs whatever required IW (IF?) solution
shouldn't do this.

Hopefully that explains my concern.

I think I understand your concern. I'm not sure I agree with it.

As others have pointed out, I see good reason for the muni to operate the
L1 plant as a natural monopoly. Time and time again, we've seen that an
L1 plant requires very high density or nearly 100% market share to be
economically viable. Even in the case of very high density you still usually
only get a minute number of L1 providers and almost never more than 2
per media type (rarely even more than 1).

I honestly don't actually expect any L1 providers.

But that doesn't mean I'm willing to foreclose the possibility.

You should absolutely expect L1 providers.

The L2 and/or L3 services should be operated strictly as the back-up provider
of last resort and/or to keep the other providers honest.

However, when it comes to inside wiring (or fiber), I see no benefit to not
leaving that to the first service provider to install each residence and
possibly even being redone for every install. Some providers may use
ONTs, others may not. (ONT is, after all AE/PON specific and there's no
reason a provider couldn't drop a 24 port Gig-E switch in the colo with
a 10G uplink (or a stack of them) and sell Gig connections on regular
1000baseFX (or LX or SX or whatever) service.

Sure.

In case I wasn't clear... Everything beyond the jack box counts as IW (IF?)

I'm not saying that's necessarily a good business model, but, I'm saying
that the muni really should avoid encumbering its L1 offering with
any additional technologies anywhere.

Yup; I've been saying that right along. That's why I'd prefer to do the
install as optical patch/interior, if I can sell it.

Sure, I can understand that. The problem is when you get into the business
of doing interior terminations on customer premises that aren't actually ordering
service at this time, you open yourself up to a host of installation difficulties and
increased costs.

That's why I think the better solution is an exterior patch box with a requirement
that all patches into the box be brought out inside innerduct.

Doesn't mean I don't understand why that might be troublesome.

That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
through on order.

How do you propose to do your validation tests against fiber coiled in
a box?

If they want to run L2 or L3 service of last resort, I have no problem with
that, but, it should be completely separate from their L1 offering and should
avoid any blurring of the lines.

I believe, Owen, that that's the first time I've heard you extend that
opinion to L2; everyone had me pretty much convinced that my plan to
offer L2 was not likely to cause competitive pressure in the way the L3
service would.

I'm not sure whether offering L2 would cause competitive pressure the way
L3 would, but, I do think that there is a lot of benefit and I'm becoming more
convinced by some of the other arguments that clean layer separation at
L1 is well worth while.

Had I misunderstood you?

My opinion is evolving with the discussion. I was wishy washy about L2 before.
I'm becoming more convinced that even if you offer it, it should have clean
separation.

In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate
SFP.

Owen

3

What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a
patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external*
jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop
cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work it. *This* *will*
cause the installation reliability problems that Scott is scared of.

OTOH, that will be the L2+ providers' problem, and the _level_ of
problems will be inversely proportional to how well they train/pay their
field staff/contractors. IOW, the incentives are properly aligned with
the desired behavior.

If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
easy access for both initial installation and for later
troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.

No, either the ONT goes on the outside wall and we poke cat 6, or the
drop cable goes inside to a jack box for an interior ONT.

IMHO, both of those options are unacceptable, for different reasons.

That, in turn doesn't mean I can't coil the tail in a box, and poke it
through on order.

Once the tail is "poked through", though, you no longer have an exterior
test point that is easily accessed. If the L2 and L1 providers are
arguing over whose fault a problem is, they not only have to both show
up at the same time, they also have to arrange for the property owner
(or their agent) to be present as well to let them inside to continue
their testing and bickering. That won't end well for either party.

S

4

If the L1 provider's responsibility ends at the jack on the outside NIU,
as an ILEC's does today with copper, then you have clean separation and
easy access for both initial installation and for later
troubleshooting--clear benefits that help mitigate nearly all the
problems Scott refers to, at least from the L1 provider's perspective.

Stephen, I'd say this is much less clean in my experience than you're
describing. In fact, I'd say that operationally its downright problematic
in many territories and not improving. So if this is the model if how it
should be done I think we have a long way to go before doing it in a FTTx
world is remotely economical. Now, this isn't a problem in all territories
or operators but it is common as dirt.

5

In part because I'm realizing that it is literally viable to plonk a 6509
into the colo, get a 10G uplink and pump out a bunch of 1000base?X
connections (or even 100base?X) to customers at a fairly low price
per port. In this case, there wouldn't be any active L2 termination at
the customer other than a media converter or router with an appropriate
SFP.

Owen

Just so you know, this isn't viable, at least not to scale. You can on the
other hand use Cisco's ME line to do this even less expensively (so long as
you weren't planning on buying used 6509).