Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers

  • From: Frank Coluccio
  • Date: Mon Aug 08 23:35:02 2005

Gordon Cook asked:

--

>>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?<<

-- 

Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network,
building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even
very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the
government and for companies outside of the Fortunes.

Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole
source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek -
unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of
inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach.

So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in
support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely
within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be
all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research
Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that
must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing
traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended
distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point
solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of
diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just
three areas of concern.

Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large
ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those
points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But
IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of
the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a
financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future
pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is
something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on
the particulars of the enterprise or service provider.

That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the
market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of
diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least
US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the
goals of two corporate entities.

Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop
of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and
ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ...
---

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
347-526-6788 Mobile
frank@fttx.org

----------

On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent:


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) cook@cookreport.com
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.
>
> frank@coluccio.net
> ------
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.