patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Bill Dollar
Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! Haha, cold day in hell bitstream unbundling will happen over FTTC/PON FTTH/DOCSIS for business customers.
Residential/Small Business customers can be expected to never use their line's rated capacity, oversubscription concept. What happens when someone is pumping live blu-ray through their unbundled DOCSIS 3 modem 24/7? Can the ILEC cap the CLEC's/customer's connection? Whose AUP/TOS will apply? Who determines what abusive usage? What about SLA? What happens if a remote terminal/fiber node is congested everyday from 2 PM to 10 PM and the ILEC/MSO doesn't want to upgrade anything? What if the RT/fiber node fails and the ILEC/MSO won't fix it until monday morning because its the weekend? What can the CLEC do? Alpha male SMB CEO will go berzerk threatening lawsuits against the CLEC for costing him revenue.
Im not sure how Utopia, which is based off shared fiber ethernet links, handles its CLECs/abusive/oversubscription. AFAIK, all/almost all the CLECs of Utopia have GB caps on their internet connections, not sure if they are enforced.
Per TA1996 CLECs are supposed colocate their boxes at the ILEC's RT box, or run their own lines all the way to the customer's property (look at all of Cogent's or Lightpath's or RCN's on-network buildings). Why haven't they done this?
Lightpath's network shares very little with Optimum HFC, different levels on the telephone poles, different ducts underground (but same ROW/ditch), different entry ducts into building basement. Lightpath was an independent company with its own network at one point that CV bought. RCN's SLA fiber plant is the same as is used to deliver RCN HFC, atleast in NYC.
Cbeyond is basically asking for a P2P VPN over possibly bonded residential DSL/Cable modems from the customer to Cbeyond the CLEC and let Cbeyond "manage" the line, so the customer doesn't have to coordinate between Cbeyond's equipment and the ILEC's line when trouble arises. For all the reasons bitstream unbundling doesn't work above, Cbeyond faces the same problems, and Cbeyond will go whining to the FCC about net neutrality.
Regarding setting unbundle prices to be profitable for ILEC's fiber network, thats a joke in the USA. Any ILEC will build and rent you dark fiber loop to the CO for 10Ks to low 100Ks with cost plus billing. Thats currently the "profit" price of fiber plant according to the law. How FIOS and Uverse were built, well, it involves the square root of -1 
quote:
Similarly, Canada has failed to effectively enforce unbundling requirements and has
performed poorly in terms of broadband penetration, capacity, and affordability. Indeed, based
on a quantitative analysis of the prices charged for the highest speeds of broadband offered by
the 59 firms in the countries studied, the study found that "the lowest prices and highest speeds
are offered by firms that occupy a market with unbundling-based entrants alongside incumbent
telecommunications companies and facilities-based competitors, both cable and power" whereas
"the highest prices and lowest speed combinations occur in North America, where there are no
unbundling-based entrants, and where both the United States, formally, and Canada, practically,
have come to rely on inter-modal competition." 77
Bias of course. Canada has full bitstream and conditioned copper unbundling. Canada has multiple CLECs for DSL that only need to connect one SONET line with their customers data from all over Canada from the ILEC to a backbone provider ethernet line at the DSL CLEC's facility. Everyone served by an ILEC DSL RT in Canada can get CLEC DSL. |
