On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-01-30 15:49, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> 1. They are not allowed to sell L3+ services. >> 2. They are not allowed to own any portion of any L3+ service provider. >> 3. They must sell their L1/L2 services to any L3+ service provider on >> equal terms. > > > This is the problem we have in Canada. Despite the CRTC mandating that > incumbents must wholesale their last mile, the incumbents are always in > a conflict of interest because they also run their own retail service > which competes against wholesale ISPs. And the incumbent's own retail > service do not purchase last mile access at the regulated rates set by > the CRTC. > > So functional separation is a clear requirement to ensure that the > provider of the last mile as no vested interest in giving preferential > treatment to one retailer over another. > > > Another aspect which is important: when you wish to foster a competitive > environment, you have market controlling incumbents and small startup ISPs. > > Small startup ISPs cannot afford to deploy fibre to whole neighbourhood > when they will only have a couple of subscribers there. Having shared > infrastructure is key to allowing small competitive ISPs to start and grow. > > While Australia resisted giving NBN the ability to aggregate traffic > centrally (so that one ISP could get one connection to NBN and serve the > nation), Canada moved in a different direction, increasing aggregation > so that small ISPs can compete in a greater footprint so that even > smaller towns can get competitive services. (Rogers cable is the last > problem/sore point of this policy set in 2010 and confirmed/implemented > in late 2011 - However, the aggregation is still within an incumbent's > own fooot print. So you need links to Bell for most fo Québec and > Ontario, links to Telus for Alberta-British Columbia, Rogers to reach > cable custoemrs in Ontario, Vidéotron for Québec, Shaw for BC/ALTA etc). > > So while the Aussie NBN has many points of interconnect, they will > connect to every home in that area, whereas in Canada, ISPs have cable > and telco connections which are separate. > > > In the Australian model, if you want to serve 5 customers in a small > town, you need to setup a gigE link to the MMR in that small town. So it > is much harder for smaller ISPs to cost justify expansion because break > even point is far down the road once you have enough customers to > justify the links to that town. > Seems to me that this will lead to a business of aggregators selling aggregations of interconnects to the various small towns in AU to eventually bring that price down. Owen
