Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity)

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jra at baylink

Mar 21, 2012, 11:58 AM

Post #1 of 23 (2444 views)
Permalink
Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity)

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Wieling" <EWieling [at] nyigc>

> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.

TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location;
VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities
in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?

Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.

> We often get customers in buildings lit by Verizon fiber service who
> want to change carriers. Too bad they can't anymore. Technically they
> can switch providers. Verizon will remove the fiber, re-install
> copper, and have the customer down for a week or so.

See above.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


mike at mtcc

Mar 21, 2012, 12:16 PM

Post #2 of 23 (2396 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Wieling"<EWieling [at] nyigc>
>> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
>> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
>> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
>> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
>> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
> on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location;
> VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
> and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities
> in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
> or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
> facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
>
> Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.
>

So if Verizon is on the hook to support the CLEC's, why are they
pulling the local loop? I'm sure it isn't free to pull it and certainly
not to reinstall it, so what might be their motivation?

Mike


john.yocum at fluidhosting

Mar 21, 2012, 12:28 PM

Post #3 of 23 (2405 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On 3/21/2012 12:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Eric Wieling"<EWieling [at] nyigc>
>>> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
>>> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
>>> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
>>> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
>>> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
>> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
>> on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that
>> location;
>> VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
>> and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical
>> facilities
>> in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
>> or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
>> facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
>>
>> Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.
>>
>
> So if Verizon is on the hook to support the CLEC's, why are they
> pulling the local loop? I'm sure it isn't free to pull it and certainly
> not to reinstall it, so what might be their motivation?
>
> Mike
>

VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain,
and it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've
disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper
plant. POTS service which ILECs provide, is basically copper service. So
once the copper is gone, they are no longer in the heavily regulated
POTS business. The result being, they can do whatever they want.

--John


mike at mtcc

Mar 21, 2012, 12:34 PM

Post #4 of 23 (2415 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On 03/21/2012 12:28 PM, John T. Yocum wrote:
>
>
> On 3/21/2012 12:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Eric Wieling"<EWieling [at] nyigc>
>>>> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
>>>> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
>>>> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
>>>> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
>>>> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
>>> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
>>> on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that
>>> location;
>>> VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
>>> and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical
>>> facilities
>>> in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
>>> or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
>>> facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
>>>
>>> Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.
>>>
>>
>> So if Verizon is on the hook to support the CLEC's, why are they
>> pulling the local loop? I'm sure it isn't free to pull it and certainly
>> not to reinstall it, so what might be their motivation?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS service which ILECs provide, is basically copper service. So once the copper is gone, they are no longer in the heavily regulated POTS business. The result being, they can do whatever they want.

I can understand their motivation if what Jay writes is incorrect. My
guess is that Jay may be correct technically, but VZ does it anyway
because they figure they can get away with it.

Mike


EWieling at nyigc

Mar 21, 2012, 12:46 PM

Post #5 of 23 (2409 views)
Permalink
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike [at] mtcc]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:16 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity)

On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Wieling"<EWieling [at] nyigc> Verizon, the copper wireline
>> company, is removing service from locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is
>> installed in a building. This prevents other companies from providing
>> service by leasing Verizon's copper infrastructure. If there was
>> copper at a location then VZ would be required to resell it and
>> nobody would be locked out.
> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at
> all* on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to
> that location; VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at
> the regulated NRC and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have
> the physical facilities in place or not -- are you alleging either
> that I've misunderstood that, or that VZN is refusing such orders
> *simply* because they've removed facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
>
> Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.
>

So if Verizon is on the hook to support the CLEC's, why are they pulling the local loop? I'm sure it isn't free to pull it and certainly not to reinstall it, so what might be their motivation?

Mike
==========================================

They are required to reinstall copper in many cases. The problem is that the FIOS is removed before the copper is reinstalled (as far as I can tell this is Policy), leading to several days, often a week or more, of downtime for the customer. They count on the fact no customer in their right mind would consider a week of downtime acceptable.


jra at baylink

Mar 21, 2012, 1:00 PM

Post #6 of 23 (2406 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Thomas" <mike [at] mtcc>

> > VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to
> > maintain, and it requires that they sell service to competitors.
> > Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just
> > eliminate the copper plant. POTS service which ILECs provide, is
> > basically copper service. So once the copper is gone, they are no
> > longer in the heavily regulated POTS business. The result being,
> > they can do whatever they want.
>
> I can understand their motivation if what Jay writes is incorrect. My
> guess is that Jay may be correct technically, but VZ does it anyway
> because they figure they can get away with it.

Someone tells me off list that indeed, if the plant isn't *there*, VZN
isn't required to build it.

Now, if that's the case, then they can't adminstratively block *someone
else* from building it, either...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

Mar 21, 2012, 1:12 PM

Post #7 of 23 (2415 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:00:32 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:

> Someone tells me off list that indeed, if the plant isn't *there*, VZN
> isn't required to build it.
>
> Now, if that's the case, then they can't adminstratively block *someone
> else* from building it, either...

Yes, but it's assymetric. VZN isn't required to build the 150 foot of
copper plant from building to pole, and they can't stop a competitor
from building 12,000 foot of copper plant from PoP to building. ;)


bill at herrin

Mar 21, 2012, 1:48 PM

Post #8 of 23 (2414 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra [at] baylink> wrote:
>> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
>> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
>> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
>> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
>> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
>
> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
> on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location;
> VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
> and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities
> in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
> or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
> facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?

Hi Jay,

They way I heard it, ILECs like Verizon are required to provide
unbundled elements of the tariffed services anywhere they accept new
orders for service which consumes those unbundled elements. They are
not required to deploy new infrastructure solely to satisfy an order
for an unbundled element but they may not deliver new
element-consuming services without also satisfying the orders for
unbundled elements.

So, if they build new POTS ports at the CO, they're required to also
fill the orders for unbundled POTS ports. And if they lay new copper
to connect those ports to customer homes they're required to also fill
the orders for unbundled pairs along the same path.

Separately, an ILEC like Verizon has a universal service obligation to
deliver a POTS line anywhere you order one. Without exception.

The hinky part is that the FCC decided that copper pairs are an
unbundled element but PONS wavelengths and Coaxial cable frequency
channels are not. So, Verizon doesn't have to share access to FIOS and
Comcast doesn't have to share access to the coax. As long as they
deliver phone service without consuming copper pairs, universal
service doesn't compel them to build any copper plant to satisfy your
unbundled element order.

I pine for the return of structural separation. If the cable plant
provider was required to be a separate company from the services
provider, we wouldn't have these shenanigans. Different shenanigans
but not these.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside  bill [at] herrin
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


jra at baylink

Mar 21, 2012, 1:56 PM

Post #9 of 23 (2401 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill [at] he

> The hinky part is that the FCC decided that copper pairs are an
> unbundled element but PONS wavelengths and Coaxial cable frequency
> channels are not. So, Verizon doesn't have to share access to FIOS and
> Comcast doesn't have to share access to the coax.

So why is it, then, that Vision Cable-Bright House-Advance/Newhouse Cable
Partnership (which is what the payroll checks have said since about 1979)
*is* required to provide competitive cablemodem access on their HFC plant?

(I can get RoadRunner, their own brand, or Earthlink, or the local provider
Internet Junction...)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


john.yocum at fluidhosting

Mar 21, 2012, 2:00 PM

Post #10 of 23 (2406 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On 3/21/2012 1:56 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William Herrin"<bill [at] he
>
>> The hinky part is that the FCC decided that copper pairs are an
>> unbundled element but PONS wavelengths and Coaxial cable frequency
>> channels are not. So, Verizon doesn't have to share access to FIOS and
>> Comcast doesn't have to share access to the coax.
>
> So why is it, then, that Vision Cable-Bright House-Advance/Newhouse Cable
> Partnership (which is what the payroll checks have said since about 1979)
> *is* required to provide competitive cablemodem access on their HFC plant?
>
> (I can get RoadRunner, their own brand, or Earthlink, or the local provider
> Internet Junction...)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra

That's probably a local requirement. It's not a Federal requirement.
Though, some cable companies do provide wholesale services even when not
required.

Look at ATT and others trying to get state-wide franchise agreements.
They are trying to avoid having smaller areas tell them what to do, if
they want to serve an area.

--John


bill at herrin

Mar 21, 2012, 2:22 PM

Post #11 of 23 (2396 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:00 PM, John T. Yocum
<john.yocum [at] fluidhosting> wrote:
> That's probably a local requirement. It's not a Federal requirement. Though,
> some cable companies do provide wholesale services even when not required.

Bingo.

On the flip side of the equation, if you want to be an overbuilder (a
third communications infrastructure provider beyond the phone and
cable companies) the owner of the telephone poles is usually required
by the state to sell you an "attachment." An attachment is a
connection to a pole at a specific height, reserved for connecting
your cables. The power company is usually the owner, so they don't get
too bent out of shape about the fact that you're competing with the
ILEC. The last I checked, this ran about $5/year per pole.

See http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/PoleAtt.html

There are similar rules for underground conduit on public
right-of-ways but I don't know what they are. On private land,
underground conduit becomes a fixture of the property. So even though
Verizon installed the conduit for their own cable, you as the property
owner have a right to use it as you see fit.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside  bill [at] herrin
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


mailinglists at expresswebsystems

Mar 21, 2012, 6:23 PM

Post #12 of 23 (2409 views)
Permalink
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

> Bingo.
>
> On the flip side of the equation, if you want to be an overbuilder (a
> third communications infrastructure provider beyond the phone and cable
> companies) the owner of the telephone poles is usually required by the
> state to sell you an "attachment." An attachment is a connection to a
> pole at a specific height, reserved for connecting your cables. The
> power company is usually the owner, so they don't get too bent out of
> shape about the fact that you're competing with the ILEC. The last I
> checked, this ran about $5/year per pole.
>
> See http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/PoleAtt.html

When I worked for a CLEC the way that power pole attachments went, they
would sell you the bottom most attachment point on the pole and you were
required to move the other attachements further up the pole to make room for
your attachment point (at your own expense).

In our town the ILEC (GTE which morphed into Verizon) sold the power poles
to the local municipality. So if you wanted attachment rights you had to
negotiate with the local city manager. So be sure to check with them as
well.

My personal favorite was driving down the road one day watching them
literally snip our fiber off the pole with a pair of cutters (it was a dark
overlay we weren't using at the time, thankfully). Apparently the new city
manager deemed that our agreement for power pole attachment didn't apply to
him since it was negotiated under the previous city manager. He instructed
the line workers to cut it down. Lawyers were involved shortly thereafter
and the company went insolvent. Good times.


mysidia at gmail

Mar 21, 2012, 6:47 PM

Post #13 of 23 (2388 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum
<john.yocum [at] fluidhosting> wrote:
> VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and

As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain?


Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a
service, and the price of
copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should
want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving
a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want
it someday?

Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put
to good use.

> it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected
> their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS

You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some
rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years
before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which
doesn't
likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS
delivery installed for free as a
cheaper alternative to POTS delivery.


--
-JH


joe at via

Mar 21, 2012, 9:23 PM

Post #14 of 23 (2421 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

My understanding was that fiber loops were originally included in UNE products available to clecs but several years ago the FCC modified the regulations to remove them.

So, if a service can be provisioned over a copper loop, a clec can offer it, but the ilec doesn't have to share fiber loops or services provisioned over fiber loops. I guess that explains
the frenzy of fiber-to-the-curb buildout we saw with Pac Bell in the early 2000's. I don't think ATT/PacBell has been ripping out copper, but much of it in the SF Bay area is a rotting
mess and ATT hasn't been spending much money to maintain it.

Now that the DSL clecs are all but extinct, the pace of fiber buildout to the end-user has slowed down considerably.


Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

joe [at] via
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax



On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Wieling" <EWieling [at] nyigc>
>
>> Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
>> locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
>> prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
>> copper infrastructure. If there was copper at a location then VZ would
>> be required to resell it and nobody would be locked out.
>
> TTBOMK, whether Verizon has copper to a building has *no bearing at all*
> on whether a CLEC can place an order for wholesale service to that location;
> VZN is *required* to provide that wholesale service, at the regulated NRC
> and MRC rates, whether they currently happen to have the physical facilities
> in place or not -- are you alleging either that I've misunderstood that,
> or that VZN is refusing such orders *simply* because they've removed
> facilities to an address where FiOS has done an install?
>
> Cause either of those ought to violate the rules.
>
>> We often get customers in buildings lit by Verizon fiber service who
>> want to change carriers. Too bad they can't anymore. Technically they
>> can switch providers. Verizon will remove the fiber, re-install
>> copper, and have the customer down for a week or so.
>
> See above.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


rs at seastrom

Mar 22, 2012, 7:18 AM

Post #15 of 23 (2389 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

Jimmy Hess <mysidia [at] gmail> writes:

> Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be
> recycled/put to good use.

To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw):

OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG,
and 26 AWG pairs. 19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count
cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short
distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair
cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the
spec sheet I have handy).

Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24. Solid #22 and #24
(uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet
respectively. That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not a
pair.

I found scrap pricing for "telco" (obviously the contaminant ratios
out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound,
which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of
#24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an
average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is
substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying
around.

-r


bill at herrin

Mar 22, 2012, 7:53 AM

Post #16 of 23 (2381 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs [at] seastrom> wrote:
> Jimmy Hess <mysidia [at] gmail> writes:
>
>> Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be
>> recycled/put to good use.
>
> To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw):
>
> OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG,
> and 26 AWG pairs.  19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count
> cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short
> distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair
> cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the
> spec sheet I have handy).
>
> Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24.  Solid #22 and #24
> (uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet
> respectively.  That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not a
> pair.
>
> I found scrap pricing for "telco" (obviously the contaminant ratios
> out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound,
> which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of
> #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight...  if an
> average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is
> substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying
> around.

Hi Robert,

That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about
salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained
[sic] Verizon installers.

The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a
long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover
short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair
cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many
dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering
it?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside  bill [at] herrin
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


jra at baylink

Mar 22, 2012, 7:53 AM

Post #17 of 23 (2392 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs [at] seastrom>

> I found scrap pricing for "telco" (obviously the contaminant ratios
> out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound,
> which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of
> #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an
> average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is
> substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying
> around.

That's relatively current. I recycled about 105 ft of 25pr I pulled out
on a cabling job 3 or 4 months ago, and I think I got $130 for it.

But remember: much to most telco trunk cable is icky-pic, and direct-burial;
both of those change the effectiveness equation *markedly*.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274


tknchris at gmail

Mar 22, 2012, 8:05 AM

Post #18 of 23 (2392 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber
which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end
of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of
course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace
it with a unregulated one.

Also, I think Z doesnt see any problem at the moment because they probably
make more money with the closed fiber network than they ever would shutting
down/recycling copper

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum
> <john.yocum [at] fluidhosting> wrote:
> > VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain,
> and
>
> As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain?
>
>
> Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a
> service, and the price of
> copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should
> want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving
> a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want
> it someday?
>
> Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put
> to good use.
>
> > it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've
> disconnected
> > their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS
>
> You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some
> rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years
> before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which
> doesn't
> likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS
> delivery installed for free as a
> cheaper alternative to POTS delivery.
>
>
> --
> -JH
>
>


jamie at photon

Mar 22, 2012, 9:18 AM

Post #19 of 23 (2386 views)
Permalink
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

> From: William Herrin [mailto:bill [at] herrin]
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs [at] seastrom>
> wrote:
> > Jimmy Hess <mysidia [at] gmail> writes:
> >
> >> Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be
> >> recycled/put to good use.
> >
> > To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw):
> >
> > OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG,
> > and 26 AWG pairs.  19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count
> > cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short
> > distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair
> > cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the
> > spec sheet I have handy).
> >
> > Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24.  Solid #22 and #24
> > (uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet
> > respectively.  That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not
> a
> > pair.
> >
> > I found scrap pricing for "telco" (obviously the contaminant ratios
> > out there are different for different types of copper) at
> $1.20/pound,
> > which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of
> > #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight...  if an
> > average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is
> > substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying
> > around.
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about
> salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained
> [sic] Verizon installers.
>
> The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a
> long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover
> short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair
> cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many
> dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering
> it?

If it means they're shutting down the CLECs in the process? I suspect it's worth quite a bit of installer billable time...

Jamie


rs at seastrom

Mar 22, 2012, 11:21 AM

Post #20 of 23 (2385 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

William Herrin <bill [at] herrin> writes:

> That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about
> salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained
> [sic] Verizon installers.
>
> The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a
> long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover
> short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair
> cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many
> dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering
> it?

I bet there is some kind of creative accounting that they can use that
makes this totally worthwhile window dressing on their 10-Qs.

-r


frnkblk at iname

Mar 24, 2012, 11:41 AM

Post #21 of 23 (2368 views)
Permalink
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC,
basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber
builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling
rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld
applying unbundling rules.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia [at] gmail]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:47 PM
To: John T. Yocum
Cc: nanog [at] nanog
Subject: Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum
<john.yocum [at] fluidhosting> wrote:
> VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and

As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain?


Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a
service, and the price of
copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should
want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving
a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want
it someday?

Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put
to good use.

> it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've
disconnected
> their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS

You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some
rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years
before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which
doesn't likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS
delivery installed for free as a cheaper alternative to POTS delivery.

--
-JH


owen at delong

Mar 24, 2012, 11:47 AM

Post #22 of 23 (2367 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say "If you don't
build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money."

The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again.

Owen

On Mar 24, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC,
> basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber
> builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling
> rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld
> applying unbundling rules.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia [at] gmail]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:47 PM
> To: John T. Yocum
> Cc: nanog [at] nanog
> Subject: Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity)
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum
> <john.yocum [at] fluidhosting> wrote:
>> VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and
>
> As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain?
>
>
> Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a
> service, and the price of
> copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should
> want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving
> a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want
> it someday?
>
> Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put
> to good use.
>
>> it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've
> disconnected
>> their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS
>
> You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some
> rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years
> before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which
> doesn't likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS
> delivery installed for free as a cheaper alternative to POTS delivery.
>
> --
> -JH
>
>
>


jmaimon at ttec

Mar 26, 2012, 11:24 AM

Post #23 of 23 (2361 views)
Permalink
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was AT&T diversity) [In reply to]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say "If you don't
> build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money."
>
> The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again.
>
> Owen
>

Regulatory capture. Nobody is immune. The only effective maintenance
treatment is periodic upheaval.

Joe

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.