lml,
Interesting post, as were the views of WTC and MikeM.
What I think is being avoided in these discussions is the possibility, however subtle it may be, that through the use of next generation loop techniques, such as those in the modified FITL recently deployed in Atlanta, redundancy becomes subsumed by transformation.
That is, the same capabilities as HFC, multiplied by some factor when it comes to data services, and possibly video as well, are afforded by VDSL-based services supported by deep fiber now being contemplated, and in some cases already being installed, by the ILECs. Yes, I know that this goes beyond the current flavor of dsl for consumers, but for the sake of discussion, hang in there with me. It's only a matter of time before the more advanced platforms manifest themselves, and this becomes more relevant.
This kind of platform in its generic form is not as widespread now as I think it may be in the near future. By the same token, not all MSO builds are complete, either, nor have they landed on their final resting place with regard to segment size, features, etc. But what I am suggesting here is that it (FITL/FSAN) portends a parallel set of circumstances to that which is being presented currently by the MSOs. The ensuing question is, should the ILECs, after spending untold millions, billions, on upgrading their residential delivery platforms with -303 and FITL provisions, also be subjected to opening up their access platforms as well? As it turns out, this is a no brainer.
Certainly, they will. All ISPs will be accessible (will have open access) over these new ILEC platforms under the same terms of common carriage as they now experience using dialup and dsl provisions. The major difference being, and the reasons why this is possible, is because the telephony carriers are designing to a different set of rules, namely universally accepted interface standards both in hardware and in software. And these already take into account as their defining criteria: the need for interoperability; adequate capcity; and universally available open access.
The MSOs, on the other hand, for reasons which are neither a part of this message or deemed to be judged right or wrong, are not. They are designing to their own industry's internal set of rules, and they are doing "translation" of open standards to theirs, at their borders, instead.
This has to do with the etiology of obsolescing concepts, the evolution of enhanced capabilities, and other factors ascribed to inheritance and mutation. The old rules don't work, in other words. And obviously this has more than just a little bit to do with the self-serving protectionism on the parts of all concerned.
What do you think?
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
