On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, dopry wrote: > > > Elements(UNE-L), the physical lines. As long as you're running your > > > own DSLAM's you should be in the clear. > > I think you should see that it is a matter of time before UNE-L goes > > the way of UNE-P and line-sharing, with this FCC. > > Let me maintain some optimism... I thought the hopes behind dropping > UNE-P was to get CLEC's to build out their own facilities using the > existing copper via UNE-L to get the ILEC's to stop complaining about > costs and how they can't compete with cable. I guess it is a logical > progression once the CLEC's have their own facilities. I disagree. Real goal is to reverse all provisions of TCA96 (even things like Computer I and II, see "reclassification" of DSL), while giving ILECs section 271 relief.
> > > It doesn't really change the broadband landscape that much. Covad > > > and their resellers are safe and secure. The independents running > > > their own DSLAMS and providing T1 are ok.. Verizon will probably let > > > their existing resellers sit pretty. > > > > a) Verizon may or may not let their resellers (or rather, partner ISPs > > like us) to sit pretty. Right now, we are sitting nervous. > > I guess I can see that. I figure if verizon really wanted to when your > contract term is up they could just consume your userbase, and cut out > the middleman... It may seem unethical, but as long as it doesn't break > any laws or breach any contracts it is about the Quarterlies. No, actually, FCC said that DSL partners like us get 12 months to make commercial agreements with ILECs (obviously, on ILEC's terms). After that, ILECs can just disconnect us all. It doesn't matter that technically, under tariff, we have a 5-year term - ILECs will use "change in law" to terminate that term. > > b) Covad isn't sitting all that pretty. Covad executed "commercial > > agreements" with ILECs allowing them to continue to do line-sharing at > > a cost that is substantially higher than their previous line-sharing > > cost. Despite what you think, a minority of covad lines are UNE-L > > (non-shared). > > I was unaware of that... Do you have a link to more info that I could > read up on? I'm a step farther out than you in covad territory... These things aren't necessarily written up in articles by industry analysts. But try to dig around, about a year ago when line-sharing went away. > > > FTTH is my real concern. Existing regulation only applies to the > > > copper plant, unless I've missed something in recent history. > > > Incumbents do not have to share access to their fiber networks. > > > Hopefully they will to help fulfill capacity and utilization, but > > > that is a hope. While Francois Menard alludes to pricing wars > > > preventing municipalities from enter the FTTH race, I think it is > > > unfounded, currently incumbent pricing is below cost for independent > > > ISP's when scale is considered*. I don't think municipalities want > > > to get involved in the expenses of rolling out or maintaining a > > > fiber infrastructure, and Verizon will beat them to the chase > > > anyway. > > > > > > I do however see this as a nod from the FCC to FTTH and Cable > > > carriers, to go on their merry way and not to worry, their lobbying > > > dollars have worked and they can move everything onto an IP platform > > > without worry of having it yanked out from underneath them in the > > > short term. > > Pretty much. > > > > > verizon's introductory DSL offer is ~324/yr / user provides up to > > > 3Mbps/768Kbps depending on what your line will carry > > > > > > access costs for a thousand users is ~60/yr(line) + ~156/yr(bandwidth) > > > -$5/month/user UNE access > > > -13K/mo or $13/user/mo for a gige connection from HE.net > > > so total access costs/mo is about $216... > > Your math is completely confused. Where'd you take "5$/month/user UNE > > access" number from? If you think "line sharing UNE" - that's *gone*. Now, > > you have to pay for UNE-L, which is 20+$/month. > > I pulled it out of my arse of course... Now I know, and knowing is half > the battle. > > I thought UNE-P was more expensive since it included both the loop and > the port, and UNE-L was just the copper loop. But UNE-P pricing was avg > 10-15/mo/port in NYC area circa 2004. UNE-L is 20-ish. UNE-P is lower monthly rate, because LECs make money on minutes and other charges. > > > Also, you need only ~25-50Mbps of internet bandwidth to serve 1000 > > users (surprising but true.) > > I was just going on a guaranteed bandwidth kind of idea... but I didn't > realize the ratio was in the area of 20-40:1. I guess it makes sense > with http browsing habits and the fact that all users won't be online > all the time. > > I guess even with your corrections you're only looking at 100-200K > revenue per year with UNE-P and even less with current UNE-L pricing... > I think It still supports the fact that ILECS are pricing below > competitor costs when scale is considered, except a few large ISPs. "below competitor costs" is an understatement. They are a monopoly. They can have whatever pricing they need to get everyone else out of the market. They *determine* competitors' costs, for crying out loud! -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
