Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell () ufp org>

> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
> > The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
> > lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
> > recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment
> > directly related to providing service to customers reached via the MMR.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with your point.
>
> The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni
> MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
> to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
> requires PM, etc.

You are, of course, advocating strict layer 1.  A point made to me last
night, not, I think by Owen, but .... Bill? .... noted that if we do
layer 2, and supply the terminations and hand off at Ethernet, then
we enable an audience of much smaller boutique Layer 3 providers, a
sentiment with which I heartily agree; I think the tradeoff for having
to have active equipment at each end -- at least with the current 
generation equipment -- is probably not a bad one to make.

> I fully support the muni MMR being inside of a colocation facility
> run by some other company (Equinix/DLR/CoreSite, whatever) so folks
> can colo "on site". I think it is also important someone be able
> to set up a colo down the street and just drop in a 1000 strand
> fiber cable to the actual MMR.

They're not building colos in 2.8 sqmi cities.  :-)

This approach would work nicely for downtown Tampa, frex.
 
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