[discuss] Question

Wed Jan 22 18:54:27 UTC 2014

Sharing passive infrastructure in the access network is nothing new. Tons of papers are written on the subject, and for example one can look at the EU regulation that is implemented since many years ago related to the investment ladder, definition of dominant market player (the owner of the copper), requirement of the LLUB and bitstream access on equal terms etc. This has been, I claim, very successful regulation and implementation in EU. We also in reality see similar implementation for FTTH Access in a number of cities in the world. Stockholm in Sweden with STOKAB as the primary owner of fibre is of course for natural reasons what I know the most of, but other examples do exist.

I do know that the various FTTH Council organisations in the world do work on specifically this issue. For example Europe FTTH Council Europe do have their next yearly meeting Feb 18-20 2014 in Stockholm, Sweden, where among other things these issues will be discussed. <http://www.ftthcouncil.eu>

   Patrik

On 22 jan 2014, at 11:25, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Hi Nathalie,
> 
> Interesting question. This question is quite similar to the unresolved
> problem (in most countries) of unbundling of the fixed broadband
> infrastructure at the last mile.
> 
> While in (I am not sure if in all) European countries the end user can
> choose among several ISPs to provide broadband services through the same
> phone line, this is not, for example, the case of Brazil -- where a
> protracted public debate on the issue with the local regulator, Anatel,
> ended up in nothing, favoring unfortunately the big transnational telcos
> who retain the oligopoly of fixed broadband.
> 
> If the fixed phone line infrastructure (as it is in the case of Brazil)
> is state-owned and temporaly given under a concession contract to an
> incumbent under the supervision of the regulator, this problem should
> have been solved, but it wasn't in most countries in a similar situation.
> 
> Now, if backbone fiber is owned by an incumbent (and not part of a
> state-owned asset given for a limited time to an incumbent), there is no
> easy solution short of a law or regulation which, based on the fact that
> most fiber runs through public land, determines clear unbundling rules.
> 
> The legal/regulatory scenario is much worse (for the consumer) in the
> case of international fiber running through international waters -- in
> which case unbundling rules could be part of an international
> convention, I guess. But I am not updated on international regulations
> regarding this particular case.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 01/22/2014 01:14 AM, nathalie coupet wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> I have a few questions.
>> 
>> How do geocast servers work? Could they be used to send an email to
>> all IUsers in Africa, for example? What kind of path selection
>> algorithm is used when topology and geography match? Especially with
>> regards to routing aggregates, routing tables, etc.?
>> 
>> If ownership of cables by a particular ISP leads to a reduction of
>> the end-user's choice, how could we really ensure an 'open Internet'
>> by allowing various ISPs to provide services through the same cables?
>> Could cables enabling multiple ISP access be a requirement for 'net
>> neutrality'? The user could then switch to an ISP providing services
>> she wants, and who would cater to the fringe-to-fringe connectivity
>> principle, without interference from ISPs or any other intermediary
>> nodes. Could there be competition then between an WAN and a LAN
>> provider, in cases where there's only one LAN provider in a given
>> area?
>> 
>> Thank you!!
>> 
>> Nathalie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list 
>> discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140122/daa744f0/signature.asc>