[discuss] Question

Sat Jan 25 20:05:33 UTC 2014

On 25/01/2014 21:19, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 25 jan 2014, at 05:35, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 23/01/2014 19:12, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> On 22 jan 2014, at 20:25, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you mean the access network, if the country has reasonably
>>>> modern regulation, the access network cabling and maybe even the
>>>> DSLAMs will be owned by a different company from any ISPs.
>>> With the LLUB requirement in the regulation I referred to, that I claim is successful in EU, each ISP have to own their own DSLAMs but the copper is separated from the DSLAM and the ISP pay for the use of the copper.
>> Yes, but this isn't essential for fair access to be possible, and it may
>> even be damaging for small ISPs who would prefer to rent DSLAM capacity.
>> However, either solution is much better than a layer 1+2+3 monopoly.
> 
> This is why the EU regulation require _both_ LLUB _and_ bitstream be available as wholesale from the owner of the copper.
> 
> The reason why I concentrate on LLUB is that I unfortunately do not see the same requirement from the regulator on fibre access, which has (I claim) resulted in very ineffective use of the fibre access network as only bitstream equivalent is available -- if even that.

Correct. At least in New Zealand, there's an interesting trick played
by the incumbent called "cabinetization" whereby the fibres are terminated
not back at a real point of presence but in local street-side cabinets;
only the rich incumbent can afford to put equipment in every cabinet.
At least they've tried to make this more neutral by forcing the incumbent
(NZ Telecom) to split off the access network (Chorus).

[To the rest of the list: yes, this is very much a governance topic,
in the boxes I've labelled "consumer protection" and "anti-competitive
behaviour" - and it's a telecommunications governance topic, not Ig.]

    Brian