Re: Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to enable FAUX competition

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Frank A. Coluccio" <frank () fttx org>
Date: December 14, 2008 12:12:47 PM EST
To: "Richard Shockey" <richard () shockey us>
Cc: <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>, <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com 
>, <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to  
enable FAUX competition
Reply-To: <frank () fttx org>

I thought I'd drop this in here, since it seems apropos. It's part of  
an dialog I am having with members of the Gilder forum, where this  
consultant to the world's largest (or should I say, still remaing)  
securities firms is considered suspect due to 'social leanings'. True  
that.

ron




Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:01 am    Post subject:       
A national fiber build out with free market incentives to companies  
and a reduction of regulation-right of way etc. sounds great. If the  
government did it, I am concerned that it would be inefficient. Also,  
as copper invites thiefs, would a national fiber optic network invite  
terrorists?
Back to top     
                

FAC





Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:35 am    Post subject:       
Hi Ron. re:

"If the government did it, I am concerned that it would be inefficient."

I would agree with your assessment here in some ways, especially if  
government were to emulate the RBOCs and MSOs' current network designs  
and treatment of subscribers. That would, in my opinion, be a  
prescription for certain disaster, granted. I'd be less concerned,  
however, if the government were to prescribe an open architecture in  
support of plain vanilla connectivity by operators in support of upper  
layer "services" that could be offered by whomever, including any  
entities spun out of today's incumbents as long as the proper  
separations (total divestiture, in other words) were first  
established. This is not very far fetched, and may in fact be viewed  
favorably by operators who are seeing their wireline properties  
constantly under threat of cannibalization from their own wireless  
parts.

If you think about it though, the government already spells out the  
nation's fiber policy. Concessions that were made to the incumbents a  
half-decade ago in the form of 'incentives' now prohibit the sharing  
of fiber's enormous capacity in a manner that was common in the past  
under the terms of common carriage.

Instead, fiber's surreal-seeming capacity today remains the sole  
province of those who were privileged enough to inherit the nation's  
rights of way from their ancestors who at an earlier time were granted  
those rights when "common carriage" in its truest and most transparent  
manifestation was still the order of the day. In return for being  
granted exclusivity, the incumbents today have, by and large, used  
fiber primarily for the delivery of eye candy and artificially priced  
bandwidth in the form of faux broadband.

As a result of the FCC's concessions, roughly two thirds of the  
nation's citizens, i.e., those who fall within AT&T's and the MSOs'  
footprints, don't stand much of a chance to see the true benefits of  
fiber's enormous potential unleashed upon them anytime soon. The other  
third may get a temporary pass, at some point, by virtue of Verizon's  
willingness to bite the bullet and push forward with fiber, despite it  
too being a closed architecture, but even VZ's efforts in the best  
cases will take a fair number of years before significant penetration  
rates can be reported.

I don't have a clear view of what the best solution is. And that's  
okay, too, since arriving at an optimal solution may require  
innovation and the sort of tweaking that innovation usually entails.  
What I do know, however, is that we're nowhere near an optimal  
solution today.

In the end, however, this is not an issue that's resolved with one  
discussion. It's many discussions.

FAC

------


--- richard () shockey us wrote:

From: "Richard Shockey" <richard () shockey us>
To: <frank () fttx org>,  "'Bob Frankston'" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Cc: <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com>,   <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to  
enable FAUX competition
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:47:33 -0500

We all know the real economic problem in fiber networking is the  
“backhoe” issue.


The real cost is the cost of digging.  This could have very  
interesting modeling issues for mobile operators as well. I’m  
continually fascinated and appalled at the same time by the reluctance  
of some commentators to understand the real problems are not consumer- 
residential oriented but mobile backhaul and enterprise.  The Swiss  
may have come up with a solution the real problems mobile operators  
are having getting competitive optical circuits to backhaul their  
traffic from towers to their core networks.  As for enterprises ..  
this is equally a reasonable solution.


Not a perfect model,  but one to consider.


From: Frank A. Coluccio [mailto:frank () fttx org]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Bob Frankston
Cc: dave () farber net; ip () v2 listbox com; richard () shockey us; dewayne () warpspeed com
Subject: RE: [IP] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to  
enable FAUX competition


One can probably cite problems for any approach that is proposed. In  
the case at hand, if one were to imagine a single fiber to the end  
point supporting a single means (technology, protocols, etc.) of  
connectivity facilitation, then they might conclude that it would be  
more prudent and probably more practical doing this than administering  
a half-dozen different connectivity facilitators. On the other hand, a  
single-facilitator model would not avail itself of any safeguards  
against the potential abuses or incompetences that a single  
facilitator might bring to bear.


Multiple providers enabled through multiple fibers (which may soon be  
anachronistic, since it will soon become equally economical to support  
multiple faciltators <and upper layer providers>through the use of  
WDM) might appear to more readily support of choice, On the downside  
of this second alternative, however, the division of revenues between  
multiple facilitators would further dillute an already-strained source  
of funding (namely, the single ratepayer on the end of the fiber) that  
would needed for monetizing bandwidth -- and this holds especially  
true for pristine bandwidth that is devoid of any upper layer  
monetized "services".

--- Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com wrote:

From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "Richard Shockey" <richard () shockey us>, "'Dewayne Hendricks'" <dewayne () warpspeed com 
>
Subject: RE: [IP] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to  
enable FAUX competition
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:02:55 -0500

Great idea [do I need to say sound of sarcasm?] – but then what do you  
expect when you think a roadway is more tracks? This is actually a  
step backwards from PPoE which at least let us share the capacity and  
then connect to a provider of our choice – now we can’t simply choose  
a provider (assuming we have to) we need to get them to run a fiber  
all the way to our homes.


I posited just such a “brilliant” scheme for delivering power two  
years ago http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=SATNPowerUnshared.


When are we going to get beyond the idea that the Internet is not just  
about more tubes? And that it’s not about the price but whether we  
have gatekeepers who can create chokepoints simply so they can create  
billable events. After all it’s wonderful to have fast tubes to our  
homes but what about those few moments when we aren’t jacked in at home?


Of course I like speed and the more capacity the better and fiber is  
cheap but we’re still one idea short of a paradigm shift here. Or  
perhaps CHF 8e9 ($7e9) short?



From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 13:22
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to enable  
competition




Begin forwarded message:


From: "Richard Shockey" <richard () shockey us>

Date: December 13, 2008 12:38:27 PM EST

To: <dave () farber net>

Subject: FW: [CAnet - news] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per  
home to                enable competition




From: news-bounces () canarie ca [mailto:news-bounces () canarie ca] On  
Behalf Of Bill St. Arnaud
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:30 PM
To: news () canarie ca
Subject: [CAnet - news] Swisscom to deploy multiple fibers per home to  
enable competition


For more information on this item please visit my blog at

http://green-broadband.blogspot.com/ or http://billstarnaud.blogspot.com

-------------------------------------------





 [Kudos to Swisscom for recognizing that multiple strands of home run  
fiber is a far better solution than xPON for delivering future proof  
broadband. It also enables competitors with new business models such  
as “homes with tails”. Excerpts from Lightwave. Thanks to Harvey  
Newman for this pointer—BSA]



Swisscom touts "fibre suisse" project

<http://lw.pennnet.com/search/search.cfm?searcharea=articles&keywords=Swisscom 
>)



Over the next six years, Swisscom is planning to invest some CHF 8  
billion in the Swiss telecommunications and IT infrastructure, with  
35% of this sum earmarked for fibre-optic expansion.


To enable potential cooperation partners to expand their own fibre- 
optic infrastructure after the construction work has started, Swisscom  
will be laying several fibres per household in all areas. One fibre  
will be used by Swisscom, while the others will be made available to  
the cooperation partners. The multi-fibre model will prevent the  
creation of a new network monopoly in Switzerland and also meet  
competitors' requirements for full access to the local loop.


At the end of July, Swisscom invited potential cooperation partners  
from the telecommunications, cable, and utilities industries to work  
with it on building the fibre-optic network, with the aim of  
implementing the network more quickly and cost-effectively in  
conjunction with several partners. Moreover, this collaboration will  
generate competition among different types of networks, boosting  
investment and innovation and maximising the benefits for customers  
and home owners, says the carrier.


While laying several fibres per household entails marginally higher  
investments, it guarantees competition at the technology and service  
levels. Limiting fibres to one per household would be impractical,  
says the carrier, since it would endanger the dynamic nature of the  
market and the technological innovativeness of the telecommunications  
industry over the next 30 to 50 years.


Find more FTTx news at /Lightwave/'s FTTx Resource Center <http://lw.pennnet.com/articles/lw_onlinearticles.cfm 
>.




-------------------------------------

To subscribe or unsubscribe send e-mail to bill.st.arnaud () canarie ca


These news items and comments are mine alone and do not necessarily  
reflect those  of the CANARIE board or management.






------

Bill.St.Arnaud () gmail com

Bill () st-arnaud org

http://billstarnaud.blogspot.com/







-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com