x
Optical/IP

RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle

LAS VEGAS – TELECOM '04 – The RBOCs have scored another symbolic victory this week against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in their push towards a deregulated industry.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear three cases related to line sharing. The cases – National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. USTA; AT&T v. USTA; and People of the State of California v. USTA – all endeavored to force RBOCs to share their access lines with competitive carriers at discounted prices.

Instead, the court let stand the rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, which said in March that the FCC didn't justify its line-sharing rules as set out in the 1996 Telecom Act (see Courts Overrule FCC Again ). Because of the Bush Administration's refusal to get involved earlier this year, the Supremes' non-actions weren't terribly surprising (see Courts Overrule FCC Again ).

The United States Telecom Association (USTA), which had skin in all three cases the Supremes declined to hear, spoke for its RBOC members in a statement from president and CEO Walter B. McCormick, Jr.: "Today's action by the Supreme Court should be the final chapter in this tortured saga of instability for the industry. It's time for the Commission to set clear, lawful unbundling rules to bring certainty and clarity to telecom."

Of course, the telecom operators are still skeptical that the Commission can accomplish even the simplest tasks.

"As a general manner of principle... the new technology, the IP-based stuff, should be under a different rule book, and we can go forward on that basis," said Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) CEO Ivan Seidenberg, in a conversation with reporters here on Monday. "Of course, I bet you that 90 percent of the regulators would agree to that statement, too. And then they will write rules that will drive you crazy."

The FCC will take the industry stage again tomorrow as it meets to consider several telecom-related topics. The Commission will consider changing the rules governing Access Broadband over Power Line systems. And – does this sound familiar? – it will also discuss requests from BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS) and SureWest Communications (Nasdaq: SURW) to reconsider broadband unbundling obligations.

— Phil Harvey, News Editor, Light Reading

<<   <   Page 2 / 4   >   >>
dwdm2 12/5/2012 | 1:10:38 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Frank,

The video is informative. I am of the opinion though that the power line solution is not any superior compared to the copper line, and wireless/radio still suffers from the BW limitations; so this is just another diversion from the issue of FTTx. But to play the devil's advocate for a moment: I get that kind of static on the AM dial every time I go under the electric poles, even though a BPL is not placed in this area. So putting all blames on BPL for the radio interference is probably not the best way to make the point... It aught to be broken down for respective situations, IMHO.
Toad680 12/5/2012 | 1:10:30 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Apologies. The link to the article seems to have expired.

This one is active.

hxxp://www.crainsny.com/news.c...
Toad680 12/5/2012 | 1:10:30 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Well, issues or not, it seems the FCC decision allow BPL is already spurring capital investment.

ConEd, Earthlink and Ambient are deploying in Manhattan as per this article today 10/16.

With such a big cost advantage, I could see this as real competition to DSL and Cable.

Here's the article:

EarthLink to share Con Ed's lines

EarthLink will begin providing Internet connections over Consolidated Edison's power lines in Manhattan in the next several months, following an FCC vote last week to establish new ground rules for commercial deployment of the service.

Con Ed, EarthLink and technology services company Ambient Corp. are signing agreements with apartment building owners to pilot the service.

Con Ed also plans to use broadband over power lines, or BPL, to run diagnostics, manage residential power load and, ultimately, allow consumers to regulate their electricity usage--control their air conditioners, for instance--via the Internet.



http://www.newyorkbusiness dot com/news.cms?id=9039
outtatelecom 12/5/2012 | 1:10:29 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle
Which makes my point exactly. These guys keep
telling the FCC that BPL will be the boon
to rural broadband access, making them sound like
the saviors of the countryside, then they turn
around and deploy in one of the densest metropolitan areas of the US.

Take a look at this story to see what some of the
experts are saying about the BPL business case.
Not as rosy as the industry would like you to
believe:

http://www.technewsworld.com/s...

Frank 12/5/2012 | 1:10:27 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Hello Toad680,

First, I want to apologize for not answering your earlier questions concerning my post #2 in this thread. They somehow got away from me, and I havenGÇÖt any reason not to want to dialog with you. On the contrary, in fact. You asked:

1)GÇ¥Are you personally a Ham operator?GÇ¥

Answer: I was a Ham operator forty years ago, but dropped it when I found out about girls. Seriously, yes, I WAS a Ham at one time, and I spent quite a bit of time running down to Radio Row on Cortlandt Street in NY City procuring, and then attaching, television interference (TVI) filters on neighbors TV sets. Granted, it was a high-density area of Brooklyn that I lived in, but it affords me to speak with a modicum, at least, of experience in the matter.

2) GÇ¥What about notching for interference?GÇ¥

Answer: I havenGÇÖt explored this angle in the realm we are discussing, to be honest with you, but from other experiences with deep notch techniques IGÇÖd have to ask how deep the notch would have to be, what the Q of it is, and at what cost, since Q and cost are by no means linearly related. I, too, would be interested in reading more about this if anyone here can expand on the matter.

3a) GÇ¥Aren't most metropolitan areas underground anyway?GÇ¥

Answer: In the deep metro, high-density distribution** cables tend to be buried or placed in conduits underground. Yes. And in the inner city there sometimes is no other feasible way to do it. But in the vast majority of cases, in the outer boroughs, say, the underground cables stub up out of the street and take aerial to their destinations, all except, possibly, for high voltage commercial users.

3b) GÇ¥So you don't have the interfernece. ConEd has a site/blg on the upper west side of Manhattan with Ambient Corp. But the whole city is underground wires, so why not all of NYC now that formal rules are in place?GÇ¥

Answer: This was partially answered in my reply to 3a, above. Secondly, despite the trials and toe dipping that is taking place, no one is entirely sure that there are not some gotchas out there, so everyone is proceeding cautiously in those areas where ample alternatives to broadband already exist. And I dare say that broadband-underserved or -unserverd areas are proceeding a bit more aggressively. And again, the entire city is NOT served by underground distribution all of the way.

4a) GÇ¥Why don't the economics work?GÇ¥

Answer: I donGÇÖt know how the economics of BPLGÇÖs final profile will look, but itGÇÖs safe to say that if we ignore any potential pitfalls caused or endemic to the technology itself, that the economics would be on a par or better than those of other service providers, purely based on their leveraging of in-place facilities.

4b) GÇ¥It seems to me that a utility can justify the cost based on live outage detection, automated meter reading, real time pricing and load balancing.GÇ¥

Answer: Outage detection is, in part, already handled by SCADA, where major outages are concerned. So, that leaves the management of home appliances and meter reading. The powercos could have done this a long time ago using low speed telemetry over existing power lines, and some actually have. I view this collateral advantage with a bit of skepticism, in other words, and not a primary mover of going with a full-bore broadband platform.

4c) The fact that they can lease their lines to an ISP to sell internet, VoIP, and HDTV would seem like gravy, no?

Answer: IGÇÖve been in this game far to long to ever say never to anything. But before I would ever begin contemplating whether BPL would satisfactorily support VoIP, much less HDTV, I would first want to see it pass the test of passing simple binary digital data (bits), and to do so on a broad basis, taking into account the many permutations of venues where it exists. The technology isnGÇÖt there yet, if indeed it will ever be, so IGÇÖll continue to wait and see how it plays out along with you and everyone else here.


In your last post to me you stated:

GÇ¥I've read a lot of negative stuff as well. But it seems to be missed on you that those who really need to evaluate the business case--those who actually commit capital--have done so and chosen to make the capital commitment. As a specific example I posted that article on Earthlink with ConEd and Ambient in NYC.GÇ¥

IGÇÖve seen too many failed starts, like AT&TGÇÖs Angel wireless venture; the original incarnations of pt-mpt metro wireless; and the vertical blanking interval schemes that were supposed to revolutionize the planet, to name a few, to want to see the beef before itGÇÖs cooked. And the beef here, if youGÇÖll forgive my use of metaphor, has a tainted smell to it.

I say this based purely on technical reasons, since, in other respects, I am all for the powercos venturing into telecom, since they like no one else have the rights of way, the funding and a waiting subscriber list with whom they already has a relationship. But I would like to see them embark on one or more of many other approaches (which IGÇÖd be glad to list, but youGÇÖve already come across them, IGÇÖm sure) in such a way that has 21st Century relevance, as opposed to merely being an early Nineties answer to ISDN.

One of my primary considerations in evaluating PLB centers on the irrefutable physics surrounding the criteria that are used for passing electronic signaling over wire pairs (or, forsooth, wire to ground!). These demand a high level of precision GÇÿbalanceGÇÖ between conductors (R, C, L and capacitance- and noise- to ground), something that the telcos learned very early on, and have been perfecting ever since (note the gradations of Category 5, 6 and beyond in commercial building premises cabling systems that take these very parameters into account).

The answer to this lies in very large part in the twist of the wires that make up the pair. When done properly, an exacting twist not only rejects influences from the outside to the pair in question, but it also prevents the emission of harmful EMI/RFI signals to the outside world, as well.

When you look up at a power company hookup on a pole you might notice that the wires coming into a home are in fact twisted. But the level of twist employed is more for keeping the wires SiameseGÇÖd together properly rather than adhering to the parameters affecting data transmission.

And as you look beyond the pole toward the source you will also note that the twist no longer exists, effectively creating antennae that are responsible for radiating unwanted signals to the surrounding area.

Gǥ GǪ you can dispute the attractiveness of the business case all you want, while the market builds those businesses around you.Gǥ

Do you hear me disputing or seriously questioning what is being done? I submit that I am doing some of both. If the technology can be perfected through some means that I am as yet unaware of, perhaps through the use of a new wavelet algorithm, then more POWER to the powercos. But as IGÇÖve made clear here, there is a lot of work to do, and a lot of misconception to correct, even as far as what is buried and what goes overhead.

Having stated the above, I also want to say that the powercos are perhaps the best situated of all in doing something meaningful in broadband. IGÇÖm just disappointed with the manner in which theyGÇÖve addressed the opportunity. I hope IGÇÖve answered your questions adequately.

Frank Coluccio
[email protected]




Toad680 12/5/2012 | 1:10:27 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle I've read a lot of negative stuff as well. But it seems to be missed on you that those who really need to evaluate the business case--those who actually commit capital--have done so and chosen to make the capital commitment. As a specific example I posted that article on Earthlink with ConEd and Ambient in NYC. But Cinergy has a commercial deployment in Ohio. And there is a lot more rumbling out there about more deployments. So you can dispute the attractiveness of the business case all you want, while the market builds those businesses around you.

You never did answer my questions to you in my second post on this board.

I was really trying to understand your postion, but now you are just coming across as single sighted, regardless of what points are raised. How about addressing my questions?
Toad680 12/5/2012 | 1:10:26 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Frank,

While I am digesting the substance of your post, I thought I would return the video favor. At this site you can watch a BPL demonstration (link below).

Further, there is an article on the city of Manassas, whis is providing broadband to the entire city. FCC chairman Powell visited the site several days before the FCC's ruling.

The website is that of an industry group, so they clearly have an agenda. But I found some of the information quite useful nonetheless once I started getting interested in the topic.

http://www.uplc.org/
Toad680 12/5/2012 | 1:10:26 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Frank,

Thank you for the very thorough reply. But I'm a little confused. Are you also writing under the screenname outtatelecom? That is the person to whom I was addressing my questions.

But I greatly appreciate your comments.
Frank 12/5/2012 | 1:10:26 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Hi rjs,

Is it merely a loophole? A great pun, if it was intended as such ;-)

No, I don't think so. If the power management features (load-balancing, meter reading, etc.) were a mandatory aspect of their entry, then perhaps. But I don't think that is the case, although I think it was once. Can someone add to this? I can recall one of the earliest entrants to this sector, Pacific Telecom I believe was/is their name, that had a box that sat on the side of the home and was capable of doing power meter reading, with a secondary feature that supported ancillary (heck, this was before the average Matilda even cared about the Internet) data at speeds that I now forget. Anyone?

They have the rights of way, and they are permitted to do it, so why not? The other aspects of your question were in part covered by my last reply, above.

Frank Coluccio
[email protected]
rjs 12/5/2012 | 1:10:26 AM
re: RBOCs Clear (Another) Regulatory Hurdle Question to the experts on this board:

Is BPL actually broadband on physical powerlines
or is it just using the term "powerline" as a regulatory loophole to place fiber/coax in the
ducts supplying the homes and get access.

I think something is amiss here. It just doesn't add up. Why would I use an inefficient medium for bandwidth, epsecially if it entails capital investment on the part of power companies, to get
to the customer if I can do it more economically using the current broadband media, namely, wireless and fiber or coax.

Any comments? Is the emperor walking naked?

-rjs
<<   <   Page 2 / 4   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE