North American FTTH connections reach 1 million

bealtine

Published: Monday 9 October 2006 | 10:30 AM CET


FTTH deployments in North America have now passed over 6 million homes, up by over 50 percent or over 2 million homes since March 2006, according to a new study released by the FTTH Council and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). The number of North American homes and businesses connected directly via end-to-end fibre has reached over 1 million. FTTH deployment is growing rapidly, with more than 300,000 additional homes being passed each month.

watty

Because unlike copper the telco doesn't need to offer LLU. So another good side effect of "good" LLU

Tom Young

bealtine wrote:

Published: Monday 9 October 2006 | 10:30 AM CET


FTTH deployments in North America have now passed over 6 million homes, up by over 50 percent or over 2 million homes since March 2006, according to a new study released by the FTTH Council and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). The number of North American homes and businesses connected directly via end-to-end fibre has reached over 1 million. FTTH deployment is growing rapidly, with more than 300,000 additional homes being passed each month.

Yes interesting indeed.

One would note though that a FTTH incumbent strategy allowed same incumbents move away from the notion of LLU as we know it, or in the US it is/was called UNE-P, Unbundled Network Element - Platforms.

This was part of the last FCC, - Federal Communications Commissions, Triennial (3 yearly) review in the US which moved away from Regulating ULL and allowed incumbent pursue FTTP/H strategies.

A former BT CTO spoke at the recent ComReg conference on this matter and used Korea and Japan as examples of where this strategy and technology worked well albeit taped together.

Do you/we really want to allow eircom to move out of LLU? Controversially, I'd say yes. As it will allow the communication sector develop. So how do ComReg and DCMNR plan to forbear regulation of access to allow this? Clearly copper, investment and reinvestment is a heavy payload for many/most/all incumbents.

Will people really be able to stop an incumbent moving to this or meshing it into a Next Generation Network - NGN, strategy? I'd say no. Ultimately resulting in the grooming of exchanges and sales of profitable property portfolio's. Thus ultimately eroging the poor planning and investment strategies of new entrants hell bent on having LLU.

Don't say you weren't warned! :cool:

Tom

Incumbent: Former or current state owned (and potentially still) monopoly for provision of key access to national telecom infrastructure/s. Some examples: eircom, Belgacom, BT, France Telecom, Deutsche Telecom AG etc.

FTTP/H: Stands for Fibre To The Premises/Home, can be used interchangeably

Sponge Bob

Tom Young wrote:

Do you/we really want to allow eircom to move out of LLU? Controversially, I'd say yes. As it will allow the communication sector develop. So how do ComReg and DCMNR plan to forbear regulation of access to allow this? Clearly copper, investment and reinvestment is a heavy payload for many/most/all incumbents.

Except that heavy investment is required to gain critical mass and eircom is a sweater not an investor and has been for years now Tom. I felt that UPC may have tipped them that way but I have changed my mind about that recently and now feel that UPC and Eircom will not overexert themselves in a cozy little cartel .

Will people really be able to stop an incumbent moving to this or meshing it into a Next Generation Network - NGN, strategy? I'd say no. Ultimately resulting in the grooming of exchanges and sales of profitable property portfolio's. Thus ultimately eroging the poor planning and investment strategies of new entrants hell bent on having LLU.

Don't say you weren't warned! :cool:

Why were DT not allowed to do this in Germany then Tom when they proposed a FTTH plan as long as they did not have to Bitstream the packages out to the competition as a wholesale product ???

I am not opposed to Forbearance in Regulation at all but I am utterly unimpressed with the Comreg variant which is infinite Forbearance instead of Regulation. .

bealtine

Tom Young wrote:

Y

Do you/we really want to allow eircom to move out of LLU? Controversially, I'd say yes. As it will allow the communication sector develop. So how do ComReg and DCMNR plan to forbear regulation of access to allow this? Clearly copper, investment and reinvestment is a heavy payload for many/most/all incumbents.

Will people really be able to stop an incumbent moving to this or meshing it into a Next Generation Network - NGN, strategy? I'd say no. Ultimately resulting in the grooming of exchanges and sales of profitable property portfolio's. Thus ultimately eroging the poor planning and investment strategies of new entrants hell bent on having LLU.

FWIW I would tend to agree, the current state of cooper is so bad that trying to do anything worthwhile with it is utterly pointless...
I for one have never understood why only copper is rolled out as "new lines", with a little foresight fibre could have been rolled out. It's cheaper, more flexible and fairly easy to work with ( I have worked with it)
All it really needs is the "proper equipment" in the horrid green boxes.
The savings network wide would be enormous and fibre to the kerb would overcome the "distance limitations" of dsl over copper and eventually could become fibre to the home. Then yes all those property portfolios could be pared down resulting in more savings.

My initial reaction would be if eircom can do it so too can BT...so there is nothing stopping any company rolling out. The big sticking point would be the line rental extortion racket.

bk

The problem that I'm discovering with fibre is that you just end up with monopolies where they can charge whatever they like for sub standard service.

For instance in apartment blocks that have Smart Telecom FTTH, they charge €75 for 2m BB, 60 channel TV and phone (no free calls).

Now clearly you can get faster BB even from Eircom on crappy DSL (3m residential, 4m business), never mind LLU (ironically smart offers up to 10m BB on LLU) at a price lower then Smart.

You have no other choice then to pick this package as there is no copper phone line or coax cable (NTL) going into the apartment and usually aerials (wireless) and satellite dishes are banned.

This is incredibly frustrating and certainly not something we should be pushing for.

bealtine

bk wrote:

The problem that I'm discovering with fibre is that you just end up with monopolies where they can charge whatever they like for sub standard service.

For instance in apartment blocks that have Smart Telecom FTTH, they charge €75 for 2m BB, 60 channel TV and phone (no free calls).

That is downright piracy.

Of course Comreg will come rushing to your rescue by fobbing you off with some idiotic tripe.

I've heard of this before and it makes me very angry...

Laguna

bk wrote:

The problem that I'm discovering with fibre is that you just end up with monopolies where they can charge whatever they like for sub standard service.

For instance in apartment blocks that have Smart Telecom FTTH, they charge €75 for 2m BB, 60 channel TV and phone (no free calls).

Now clearly you can get faster BB even from Eircom on crappy DSL (3m residential, 4m business), never mind LLU (ironically smart offers up to 10m BB on LLU) at a price lower then Smart.

You have no other choice then to pick this package as there is no copper phone line or coax cable (NTL) going into the apartment and usually aerials (wireless) and satellite dishes are banned.

This is incredibly frustrating and certainly not something we should be pushing for.

But that's because this is Ireland though. If you are able to get something as good as FTTH of course there has to be a financial snag in the tail coupled with immense restrictions.

Foxwood

I wonder to what extent is this like service charges? Does the fibre belong to the "residents association" in the apartment complex, and they put out a tender for telecommunications services over their fibre, or does the fibre belong to Smart?

Tom Young

Foxwood wrote:

I wonder to what extent is this like service charges? Does the fibre belong to the "residents association" in the apartment complex, and they put out a tender for telecommunications services over their fibre, or does the fibre belong to Smart?

Don't get me started on over inflated maintenance fees for apartments!

FTTP/H is generally quite dear.

bk

Tom Young wrote:

FTTP/H is generally quite dear.

Here is the thing, I don't mind it being dear, I'm willing to pay for a high quality service.

What I do mind is that I'm going from a NTL 6m / 120 channel service to Smarts 2m / 60 channel service for more then what I was paying NTL.

I'm basically getting an inferior service for my money. I really wouldn't mind paying the money if I was getting a better service, deserving of what should be available on Fibre (at least 10m / 120 channels).

For all the praise people give Smart, this proves that when Smart have a monopoly, they act just as badly, if not worse, then Eircom.

And that we in IOFFL should campaign with the government to legislate that all apartments should have carrier neutral ducts and no exclusivity agreements allowed.

probe

There were 677,443 FTTH homes in the EU at 31.3.2006 - mainly in Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands. It will become more popular where LLU is working effectively as incumbents try to differentiate themselves from LLU operators.

France Telecom is trialling FTTH in a few areas of Paris as recently reported here and within a week or so the leading LLU operator Free announced that they were going make FTTH available Paris-wide.

Good old LLU gets everyone moving. If only the powers that be stopped protecting the incumbent and got LLU working in Ireland, some progress might be made, finally!

.probe

Foxwood

bk wrote:

And that we in IOFFL should campaign with the government to legislate that all apartments should have carrier neutral ducts and no exclusivity agreements allowed.

Carrier neutral ducts carrying monopoly copper?

probe

Foxwood wrote:

Carrier neutral ducts carrying monopoly copper?

It doesn't really matter who uses the ducts so long as it provides a platform for choice. The ducts are there anyway for various services - all that is required is that the law be brought up to date for a competitive telecommunications environment.

It would be an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that they really aren't in the pockets of developers!

.probe

Sponge Bob

probe wrote:

It doesn't really matter who uses the ducts so long as it provides a platform for choice. The ducts are there anyway for various services - all that is required is that the law be brought up to date for a competitive telecommunications environment.

It simply wont happen. If you note paras 15 and 44 and 46 and 55 of this PDF , the government were told to do this almost 5 years ago as part of an integrated strategy INCLUDING the MANs and . 350,000 homes have been built since the recommendation , about 20% pf the entire national stock.

They could all have had ducts had the government not been complete muppets. The blame falls mainly on the dept of the environment under Dempsey and latterly Roche , surprise that .

It would be an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that they really aren't in the pockets of developers!

They will demonstrate no such thing what with an election incoming.