3 comments:

At 03 June, 2009 05:12 Zed Usser said...

The referenced presentation clearly identifies use cases where "over the top" or bitstream delivery is unsuitable.

There are several reasons why bitstream only access should not be the only open access mechanism. A fully developed market requires both bitstream and ULL open access.

Reasons for this range from technical to econimical:
- Bitstream only access reintroduces a monopoly into the access network. For those who failed Econ 101, a quick summary: monopolies are bad.
- Bitstream only access precludes any wavelenght services. For example it is not possible for the service provider to roll their own RF over fiber service or for that matter any other service that requires their own wavelenght.
- Bitstream only access rates are set by the access network operator (ANO) and can not be modified or upgraded without the consent of the ANO.
- Bitstream only access provided by a third party introduces a range of issues to the service provider
* security - all nonencrypted traffic is available to the ANO and even encrypted traffic can be analysed to gather information about the service provider's customers or operations
* shaping - all traffic can be arbitrarily shaped by the ANO. See documented cases in Canada.
* restoration - the ANO can not be bypassed for emergency restoration or any other network management reason
* control - there isn't any. QoS is provided according to ANO policy, SLAs might be honored or not and priority cases are classified according to ANO policy.
- Bitstream only access places the service provider in a very weak and undifferentiated competitive position for basic services.

Bitstream only access - JUST SAY NO!

 

At 03 June, 2009 11:33 Stephen Davies said...

Zed Usser said "The referenced presentation clearly identifies use cases where "over the top" or bitstream delivery is unsuitable."

That is exactly the point, that services should be delivered directly by the application providers rather than through the internet.

This is achievable using bitstream delivery (which is what the presentation is saying) with dedicated ports for each application.

This is exactly what we are going at Opticomm today. We already have estates up and running providing bitstream open access to 6 retail service providers, direct access with a dedicated port for a SmartGrid, a dedicated port for IPTV, and dedicated ports for the telephony. This is all provided via a bitstream access to each provider.

"A fully developed market requires both bitstream and ULL open access."

I would agree with this in terms of a business service area, but not in the residential market space. The cost to build a large scale (millions of homes for Australia) PtP network just to provide ULL would be impractical and unreasonable.

ULL which requires a PtP topology can add 3 times to the price of building the network. Also PtP requires 6 times the power requirements of PON (see http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2009/06/pon-is-greenest-broadband-technology.html)

"Bitstream only access reintroduces a monopoly into the access network. For those who failed Econ 101, a quick summary: monopolies are bad."

You still have a monopoly on the access network with ULL. The fibre network is owned by someone and that would be a single entity. You cannot avoid the monopoly just by providing ULL. It also expensive for service providers to enter to market with ULL to fibre, whereas with bitstream even the smallest service provider can gain access with a minimal capital investment. Therebit a bitstream service would create more competition at the retail level than fibre ULL.

 

At 03 June, 2009 14:17 Stephen Davies said...

"Bitstream only access rates are set by the access network operator (ANO) and can not be modified or upgraded without the consent of the ANO"

This is very true, but again at what cost to the end consumer? I might add that your position seems to indicate that wholesale bitstream provider would be anti competitive and "rippoff" the retailers.

If the network is deliver as open access wholesale only, then the operator only needs to provide services at a price which provides a reasonable return on investment. That price can also be regulated by the ACCC here in Australia.

"Bitstream only access provided by a third party introduces a range of issues to the service provider"

Really? Based on what information or evidence? At Opticomm they have three retail providers and are in discussion with more. The wholesale services and the management of that infrastructure depends on the capability of the open access provider.

all nonencrypted traffic is available to the ANO and even encrypted traffic can be analysed....

Firstly to do this it is actually a breach of the Telecommunications Act, and carriers could face criminal charges. Secondly what if the wholesale provider of the ULL is also providing the backhaul. The traffic could be analysed anywhere in the network. This is a furfy.

shaping - all traffic can be arbitrarily shaped by the ANO. See documented cases in Canada.

Actually if the bitstream is delivered using a LAC/LNS configuration with the use of PPPoE and L2TP tunnels to the service provider (typical of installations in Australia) then such traffic shaping cannot be performed by the ANO at the transport layer.

Furthermore part of the Open Access standards being defined around the world is Net Neutrality and such traffic shaping is outlawed in some countries (or being proposed)

QoS is provided according to ANO policy, SLAs might be honored or not and priority cases are classified according to ANO policy

Who needs QoS in a residential network? What residential network offers QoS today? The honoring of SLA applies just as much to a ULL just a different type. What if the fibre is damaged, the ULL operator needs to repair the fibre.

Bitstream only access - JUST SAY NO!

Bitstream access provides the most flexability to the end subscriber as services can be migrated with a simple change of the realm.

ULL access is only supported by the retailers to give them more control and its in their best interest to have that control. Its not in the best interest of the end subscriber.

 

Post a Comment