Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
Part of the reason for this is "U-Verse" is FTTN, Fiber to the Node. AT&T has run fiber to my neighborhood, I believe the node in my case is about 1000 feet away (I drive past it on the way out). The electronics sit there, so the old model of colocating in the CO and getting the dry pair is no longer possible, the copper stops at the node and it's a largeish (6' wide, 3' deep, 5' tall) cabinet, so there's no colo.
We have that exact same stuff in my area too: I've actually talked to the AT&T tech who was setting that cabinet up on one of our streets. The explanation he gave me was that even though they want everyone to go to this new-fangled fiber thing, they still have to maintain a small number of copper pairs running all the way to the real CO like it used to be. The reason is that if some kooky customer like me wants a service like ISDN that's only available from the real Class 5 switch and not from the "U-Verse" remote terminal, they are still required to provide that as a regulated telco. Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO presence. Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution, I can still get SDSL from the CLEC, and the ILEC (AT&T) will be required to provide a direct copper pair from that CLEC's cage inside the CO to the customer premise, no matter how much they wish for these copper pairs to die. Long live copper! MS
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Michael Sokolov <msokolov@ivan.harhan.org> wrote:
Ditto with CLECs like Covad-now-MegaPath: even though they don't get access to the FTTN infrastructure, no telco is evicting their legacy CO presence. Therefore, if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution, I can still get SDSL from the CLEC, and the ILEC (AT&T) will be required to provide a direct copper pair from that CLEC's cage inside the CO to the customer premise, no matter how much they wish for these copper pairs to die.
As I understand it, that's not quite true. The ILEC is only required to provide a copper pair to a CLEC as an unbundled element IF ONE IS AVAILABLE. The ILEC has no deadline for installing new copper for the CLEC, only the requirement that the CLEC gets the next one available. If you think about it, it's obvious why: unbundling was intended to require ILECs to share in the businesses in which they already engage, not enter or remain in businesses they don't want to be in. And of course when Verizon installs Fios, they remove the old copper pairs so that they're no longer available for use. After all, Verizon wants to retire the copper infrastructure as quickly as possible so they can quit maintaining it. There are some games one can play. You can order an then cancel a service from the ILEC that would require them to install new copper, and that'll sometimes induce the copper installation that the CLEC needs to have their outstanding order. But that doesn't always work. It gets... labyrinthine.
if a kooky customer like me wishes to forego fiber speeds and prefers the slower all-copper solution,
Of course, if the companies were required to unbundle *all* of the physical path elements (including fiber) we might not need a network neutrality debate. Sadly, the cable companies' technology does not easily unbundle and it would probably be unfair to require the telcos to unbundle when the same burden isn't placed on the cable companies. So, the debate moves to a different chokepoint where both technologies can be treated the same: packet treatment. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
participants (2)
-
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG -
William Herrin