Commerce Commission to issue proceedings against Telecom for discriminating against other telco companies

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Commerce Commission to issue proceedings against Telecom for discriminating against other telco companies

1 | 2

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#474713 27-May-2011 11:08

amorangi:

If you're served from a cabinet you should be being supplied wholesale UBA internet because ULL connections via a cabinet introduces midspan injection issues which will hamper speeds. This isn't a Telecom/Chorus problem, it's the fact ISP's chose only to install equipment into exchanges and not cabinets.

As far as I'm aware it's not a "choice" that ISPs put their own equipment in cabinets - they simply cannot.

There is nothing at all stopping an ISP or telco doing that. It was a basic requirement of the cabinetisation project to allow space for other access seekers.

The problem is the cost of a) equipment and b) backhual costs (which are set by the Commerce Commission).

With each cabinet typically serving a maximum of 288 properties an ISP that had 10% of the market might capture 15 users. There is no way to build a business model delivering a ROI with such a small number of users when hardware costs as well as backhaul costs from the cabinet have to be paid for and you're potentially getting a few hundred $ per month from the combined customer base from that cabinet.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#474855 27-May-2011 15:46

As I understand it the ComCom decision for cabinet backhaul has split the backhaul cost per provider in a cabinet rather than by proportion / number of customers.

This means you need half the customers connected to the cabinet for it to even approach viability and currently in the residential market Telecom has probably 60% of customers, Telstraclear 20-30% and Vodafone/Orcon/Slingshot and the smaller ISP's have scraps.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#475021 28-May-2011 01:13

Ragnor: Is there some reason why terminating DSL on Telecom wholesale equipment in the cabinet and passing through POTS to non Telecom equipment the exchange isn't technically possible?

Telecom should/would have objected and negotiated new terms if it was not technically feasible. They've have done that for other obligations iirc.

Really the bottom lines is if Telecom had a separation obligation to meet and haven't met it there should be action.

Doing nothing when they don't meet obligations is the greater of two evils.

It seems like the problem was caused by Telecom wanting to keep cabinetised voice circuits going to the old NEAX, which of course makes sense until you want to do other things at the cabinet like unbundling. Unfortunately the Alcatel gear doesn't do VoIP so I presume they used pair gains instead of installing SIP gateways in each cabinet, due to Telecom not having any standardised VoIP product.

I reckon they just needed to interconnect VoIP traffic at the exchange with LLU providers, since its too expensive for them to put their own gear into cabinets. Pretty ominous with Chorus now needing to do VoIP all the way in a UFB world...

A word about "mid-span injection": the interference to LLU connections that share cables with cabinetised users is caused by the mid-span DSL being put onto the cable at a point where LLU signals have already been attenuated and therefore weaker because its coming all the way from the exchange. Weaker signals cannot handle crosstalk from very strong signals of other lines running in the same cable, thus a street that's cabinetised should be done completely.

Time to find a new industry!

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#475228 28-May-2011 19:21

Pretty ominous with Chorus now needing to do VoIP all the way in a UFB world...

Voice isn't upto the LFC

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#476483 31-May-2011 23:22

Beccara:
Pretty ominous with Chorus now needing to do VoIP all the way in a UFB world...

Voice isn't upto the LFC

Ok, well that is encouraging. So the LFC would handover voip traffic to the retailer's network, which still means Telecom Retail has to finally get VoIP one way or another. Are the LFCs planning to offer any VoIP emergency support at all, for example as a p2p wireless backup to cover of ISP outages? Perhaps something connected to a peering exchange... Maybe I'm expecting too much.

Time to find a new industry!

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#476548 1-Jun-2011 08:49

Well that's the big question that's been overlooked a bit, VoIP is the only method for phone over the UFB but 111 access, the 111 address database etc etc still are up in the air. Last I heard the LFC's were bound to offer and maintain a UPS on site at a low cost but that's just for the ONT and who knows how long it will run for.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#477758 4-Jun-2011 15:04

Beccara: Well that's the big question that's been overlooked a bit, VoIP is the only method for phone over the UFB but 111 access, the 111 address database etc etc still are up in the air. Last I heard the LFC's were bound to offer and maintain a UPS on site at a low cost but that's just for the ONT and who knows how long it will run for.

And who knows how efficiently they can manage ONT battery replacement schedules too...

But if there's a drama with connection to an ISP, i reckon 111 calls should redirect to a backup SIP switch that all ISPs can peer with, perhaps thats responsibility of emergency services? But CFH originally stated that LFC would have to meet 111 obligations, so I guess if they provide Layer 2 then it includes some kind of lifeline support as well.

Time to find a new industry!

1 | 2