|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RE: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
The latest is in the warehouse this september. Thanks for the interest. best, sean ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Crooks <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 10:06 am Subject: RE: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers > When is that book of yours coming out? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:34 PM > To: Gordon Cook > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers > > > > The unfortunate part of all this is there is a demand for diversity, > especially from the financial and government sectors. One of the big > problems is that clients seldom know which providers or > combinaiton of > providers give them the most diversity. There are some intersting > ways to > claculate the optimal set of providers by price and diversity, but > gettingthe data is quite difficult. Sometime large clients like > the US government > can leverage providers into divulging routing and right of ways, > but is > definately the exception. Even from our rough analyses there are > severalareas of heavily shared colocation. Sounds like the > problem is getting > worse and not better. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gordon Cook <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, August 8, 2005 4:17 pm > Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers > > > > > So although we have the technology to build networks controlled > at > > > > the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, > > the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist > > that > > we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. > > Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities > of > > > > economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the > > switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of > > > failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco > > router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever > > > failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. > > Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. > > > > How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at > > infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. > > > > How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to > understand > > > > they better build their own infrastructure. > > because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the > > equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good > > execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your > > shareholder...never mind the public at large? > > > > > > > > ============================================================= > > The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, > NJ > > 08618 USA > > 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [email protected] > > Subscription > > info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: > Where > > is > > New Wealth > > Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml > > ============================================================= > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been > especially> > interesting for me, with my focus being on the > future > > implications of > > > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that > > > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI > > will be > > > to drastically reduce the number of options that network > > planners in > > > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for > > > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro > transport> > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations > are completed. > > > > > > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of > > > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in > > > > order to > > > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to > > kick in. > > > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that > > > > business > > > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to > > mention> service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to > a > > fare-thee- > > > well, > > > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have > are, How > > > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, > What > > will> become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to > > either> business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered > > due to > > > concentration of powers? > > > > > > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point > where > > their> services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a > number > > of > > > places, it > > > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from > > > disparate providers who are using different rights of way. > This is > > > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' > > However,> the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or > > even copper) loop > > > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding > piggy- > > back> atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. > > > > > > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by > > Verizon,> SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are > > still possible. > > > > > > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the > > number of > > > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once > > > integration is completed users will find themselves riding > over > > > systems > > > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common > > set > > > of NMS > > > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher > > > levels in the stack. > > > > > > [email protected] > > > ------ > > > > > > > > >> Eight or nine people I had > > >> talked to thought they had geographically distinct > > >> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable > > >> when the second cut took it down hard. > > >> > > > > > > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy > > > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into > > > their contracts? > > > > > > Or was this type of service "good enough"? > > > > > > --Michael Dillon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|