[160869] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Dore)
Sat Feb 16 06:57:12 2013
From: Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <511F6DC6.3070608@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:56:44 +0000
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 16 Feb 2013, at 11:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Edward Dore wrote:
>=20
>>> Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
>>> because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
>>> with "fiber optic".
>>=20
>> Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also
> > be "fibre optic"?
>=20
> Because I think "fiber optic broadband" implies access and ADSL
> is no fiber optic broadband access, unless you have FTTC with not
> VDSL but ADSL.
>=20
> But, feel free to have your own definition, which may or may not
> be legally challenged by people having common sense.
Both ADSL fed from the exchange and VDSL fed from the street cabinet =
have a portion provided over fibre... where is the magic separation =
point that moves it from not being "fibre optic broadband" to being =
"fibre optic broadband"?
>> With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in
> > terms of layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as
> > they are both shared mediums aggregated before the exchange.
>=20
> Both of them sucks badly, indeed.
>=20
>> There is also an "FTTP on-demenad" option where if you are in
> > a FTTC area then you basically pay for BT/OpenReach to extend
> > the fibre to your property and provide the FTTP service. This
> > is expensive though as you foot all of the excess construction
> > charges. Apparently the average cost is going to be around GBP
> > 1500.
>=20
> I changed your pond sign in windows 1252 encoding (even though
> your improperly configured mailer says it ISO-8859-1) to GBP.
>=20
> I think 1500 GBP is too high as a cost to have fiber between a
> cabinet and your premise.
>=20
> Considering that cost of SS is almost identical to POTS, the
> reasonable cost should be GBP 500 or so.
>=20
> Is it a result of BT monopoly or can there be some competition
> possible to choose an entity to install the fiber from multiple
> independent entities?
The =A31500 is what BT are quoting as an average based on distance. The =
cost works out as something like a fixed =A3500 setup + a per meter =
charge which varies depending on how they have to get from the cabinet =
to your property + any other civils/construction work required along the =
way.
For example, grass verges are much cheaper than pavements which are in =
turn cheaper than roads. They also have set charges for things like =
drilling through a wall depending on whether it is internal or external =
and if it is concrete or not concrete.
There's a list of the current OpenReach Excess COnstruction Charges at =
http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDeta=
ils.do?data=3DZdqG%2Fxv%2FjSuBEEITnogh5uNOEwQ2%2FKws5WBAVcIlcholMnGHsqdC0v=
zO163bJmh34D91D7M0q8u%2F%0AIlSgtIFAKw%3D%3D
Unfortunately, only OpenReach can install these as part of the "FTTP =
on-demand" product. Any OpenReach service provider customer can order =
these, but it is OpenReach (part of the BT Group) that does the work.
>> In either case, OpenReach are required to provide "open"
>> access at the exchange to any companies wishing to make use of
> > the local infrastructure and provide competing services to BT.
>=20
> The problem is on the density of the exchanges.
>=20
> The exchanges at every CO with L1 unbundling is, seemingly, most
> competitive against BT.
OpenReach are required to sell space+power at the exchange for =
co-location of service provider equipment as well as selling all of the =
services that they sell internally in to the wholesale and retail =
divisions in the BT Group. It is then up to the service provider to =
aggregate customers and arrange their own backhaul, which obviously =
means that exchanges with a lower density of customers and/or which are =
more remote and therefore more expensive to arrange backhaul from are =
less attractive to unbundle.
What generally ends up happening is that the service providers competing =
with BT unbundle the more attractive exchanges where it makes financial =
sense to do so and then use BT Wholesale services to cover the other =
exchanges with more expensive, slower products that include a lower =
monthly cap due to the high cost of backhaul on the BT Wholesale =
network.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet=
