On Thursday, February 06, 2014 02:29:40 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I disagree on that one as well. It might be in some markets, but it's not in all.
I keep using the word "typical", but not sure if you're missing it. Typical, not limited to, i.e., common, but not the only option. I'm basing this on what I've seen in various countries across a few continents I've worked in.
This wasn't incumbents specifically, but just a different model to achieve the same thing, give end users access to multiple ISPs, multiple "cable TV" vendors, and multiple VOIP providers through a neutral network.
Again, just an example I gave, not to say it was the norm. The countries I was referring to is where the incumbents either owned the infrastructure and were reluctant to open it up to competitors, or were awarded national broadband projects to deploy and run the infrastructure but were not specifically governed to how low the OSI Layer they can open up the infrastructure to. In other places, it is a business model, in addition to more traditional ways of unbundling. These tend to be more evolved markets, but again, not limited to.
What do you mean by subscriber management? This worked 10 years ago, what problem are you saying has been solved recently?
End user authentication and management typically being done via PPPoE because that was the best and most secure way to manage customer connections (for some operators, still is). By DHCP I mean an alternative to PPPoE-based authentication where Option 82 and friends can allow service providers to authenticate customers based on AN port, MAC address, VLAN ID, e.t.c., instead of username/password a la PPPoE. This gets passed as part of initial DHCP transactions. Rethinking your comment (because I thought you meant DHCP as the way to go for subscriber management when you debunked PPPoE) I'm guessing you refer to simply assigning IP addresses to customer interfaces in FTTH scenarios? No? Mark.