InssomniakThe Glitch Premium Member join:2005-04-06 Cayuga, ON |
to CanerisErik
Re: Opening an ISP in Canadasaid by CanerisErik:said by InvalidError:said by An_Onymous :
Bring it to a BIG MDU... Not individual homes. They are not worth the effort and investment. The problem with MDU/condo arrangements is that they are typically first-come-first-served exclusive contracts. If Bell, the cableco or another company already has a service contract for the building, you are SOL since many of those provisioning deals are signed or at least under negotiation before the MDU is even in construction. You don't just walk into a modern MDU and start drilling holes however you please. Sorry, but that's completely incorrect. Exclusive access arrangements are prohibited under CRTC 2003-45. This same decision guarantees access to MDUs for all LECs, whether during construction or after (though the specifics of this vary). It also specifies that "all LECs that have responsibility and control of copper in-building wire in an MDU to permit other LECs to connect to and use the in-building wire at no charge." Ive been looking to offer a discount DSL service in MDUs around where I am (its just that type of market), but every time I read CRTC 99-10 and 2003-45 I just get confused. Its my understanding that if the building has Bell owned house cable there is nothing I can do unless I want to run new copper. The building owner has the option to take control of it somehow, but that leaves me hanging on maintaining all the house cable for the entire building regardless if its my service on the copper or not. Most buildings are not gonna be interested in that. |
|
|
|
to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik:Exclusive access arrangements are prohibited under CRTC 2003-45. This same decision guarantees access to MDUs for all LECs, whether during construction or after (though the specifics of this vary). Nevertheless, the contracted SP still gets first dibs on the wiring, often gets to charge the competition $1/month for LLU and can have part of its fees built into the rental or condo fees. Might not be completely exclusive but it is exclusive enough to make it hard to justify the trouble of installing equipment to go after a minority of residents. |
|
AngeloThe Network Guy Premium Member join:2002-06-18 |
Angelo
Premium Member
2009-Sep-21 9:10 pm
im wondering why he stopped posting |
|
|
said by Angelo:im wondering why he stopped posting Went back on his meds would be my guess. |
|
CanerisErikCaneris Premium Member join:2007-10-03 Toronto, ON |
to Inssomniak
said by Inssomniak:Ive been looking to offer a discount DSL service in MDUs around where I am (its just that type of market), but every time I read CRTC 99-10 and 2003-45 I just get confused. Its my understanding that if the building has Bell owned house cable there is nothing I can do unless I want to run new copper. The building owner has the option to take control of it somehow, but that leaves me hanging on maintaining all the house cable for the entire building regardless if its my service on the copper or not. Most buildings are not gonna be interested in that. Nope, that's not the case. Ignore 99-10. 2003-45 supersedes it and all other previous MDU related decisions and in fact reverses some of them. If you just look at the Commission's determinations in 2003-45, it might make things clearer. PM me if you want to discuss something specific or if it's still not making sense. |
|
CanerisErik |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by CanerisErik:Exclusive access arrangements are prohibited under CRTC 2003-45. This same decision guarantees access to MDUs for all LECs, whether during construction or after (though the specifics of this vary). Nevertheless, the contracted SP still gets first dibs on the wiring, often gets to charge the competition $1/month for LLU and can have part of its fees built into the rental or condo fees. Might not be completely exclusive but it is exclusive enough to make it hard to justify the trouble of installing equipment to go after a minority of residents. Nope, there is no $1/month, that's 2001-362. It is no longer the case as 2003-45 reversed this. As of 2003, any LEC that owns in-building wiring must let any other LEC access it free of charge. And in-building wiring != LLU. |
|
|
Eric you don't happen to know if that applies to satellite wiring as well do you? |
|
InssomniakThe Glitch Premium Member join:2005-04-06 Cayuga, ON |
to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik: As of 2003, any LEC that owns in-building wiring must let any other LEC access it free of charge. And in-building wiring != LLU. What if you are not a LEC? |
|
CanerisErikCaneris Premium Member join:2007-10-03 Toronto, ON |
to olebiker2
said by olebiker2:Eric you don't happen to know if that applies to satellite wiring as well do you? What do you mean by "satellite wiring"? The decision applies to in-building wiring/risers, i.e. copper. |
|
CanerisErik |
to Inssomniak
said by Inssomniak:said by CanerisErik: As of 2003, any LEC that owns in-building wiring must let any other LEC access it free of charge. And in-building wiring != LLU. What if you are not a LEC? Then if the wiring was installed and is owned by a LEC, it's at their discretion as to whether to allow you or not. Under the decision, they're not obligated to do so if you're not a LEC. |
|
|
to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik:said by olebiker2:Eric you don't happen to know if that applies to satellite wiring as well do you? What do you mean by "satellite wiring"? The decision applies to in-building wiring/risers, i.e. copper. The wiring that carries TV signals. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan
Premium Member
2009-Sep-22 1:52 pm
said by olebiker2:The wiring that carries TV signals. 2003-45 only applies to copper loops... Not co-ax or fibre; other then that the commission agreed that LECs have the right to install other media, when the available copper loops aren't sufficient to deliver the services required. |
|
LazMan |
to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik:Nope, that's not the case. Ignore 99-10. 2003-45 supersedes it and all other previous MDU related decisions and in fact reverses some of them. If you just look at the Commission's determinations in 2003-45, it might make things clearer. PM me if you want to discuss something specific or if it's still not making sense. Hey Erik - if you think CRTC documentation makes sense, I need to start drinking whatever you are... |
|
|
Well the sun is past the yardarm ain't it. |
|
CanerisErikCaneris Premium Member join:2007-10-03 Toronto, ON |
to LazMan
said by LazMan:said by CanerisErik:Nope, that's not the case. Ignore 99-10. 2003-45 supersedes it and all other previous MDU related decisions and in fact reverses some of them. If you just look at the Commission's determinations in 2003-45, it might make things clearer. PM me if you want to discuss something specific or if it's still not making sense. Hey Erik - if you think CRTC documentation makes sense, I need to start drinking whatever you are... I didn't say it makes sense |
|