[discuss] Question

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 22:46:25 UTC 2014

On 26/01/2014 11:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Dear Brian and Patrik, great contributions to the dialogue on this.
> Just to remind you that many in this list do not dominate the myriad of
> acronyms and associated concepts on this track, so it would be great
> (and educative for many of us) if you tried to explain DSLAMs and LLUBs
> and son on, when such mentions are needed, to most of us poor mortals,
> Wikipedia and Google notwithstanding :)

A fair point.

DSLAM = Digital subscriber line access multiplexer. The Wikipedia entry
is pretty good on this one, but in simplified terms: the box of electronics
at the point of presence (central office/telephone exchange) where a number
of individual digital subscriber lines join into the main part of the access

LLUB = Local Loop Unbundling. Regulations that require competitive access
to the so-called local loop (the wires from the point of presence to your
house). "Unbundling" because this means separating the costs and charges
out from the rest of the traditional monopoly service (telephony).

Never in human history has an incumbent telco agreed with the national
regulator about the true cost and the fair price of an unbundled local
loop ;-).


> fraternal regards
> --c.a.
> On 01/25/2014 06:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list