North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
- From: sgorman1
- Date: Mon Aug 08 16:35:29 2005
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 getting the 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 several areas of heavily shared colocation. Sounds like the problem is getting worse and not better.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Cook <email@example.com>
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
> 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) firstname.lastname@example.org
> info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > of NMS
> > constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher
> > levels in the stack.
> > email@example.com
> > ------
> >> 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