undefined | Better HN

0 pointshocuspocus4y ago0 comments

Unbundling (the copper lines) and open fiber deployments are different things.

Many municipalities still haven't gotten fiber deployments from the local utilities, and in practice you can be stuck on Swisscom's fiber. It's not too bad since several ISPs are also able to use it: for instance Sunrise before (I'm not sure they still allow it), but also Init7 (their Hybrid7 offering). However an ISP like Salt uses only open fiber, at least for now.

Salt and Sunrise had signed an agreement to push for extensive open fiber deployments by 2027. But then the deal blew up when Sunrise got acquired by UPC, since they'd rather use the existing DOCSIS infrastructure in the less dense areas.

Swisscom was going to push its own deployment as well (even though G.fast is not bad) and Salt was now interested in chipping in, but soon after the Comco has stopped Swisscom from using P2MP which is a big setback in its strategy to cover sub-urban areas. I understand the decision to enforce P2P deployments and give smaller ISPs a fair chance but it's definitely going to hinder the speed of new deployments. I believe we're rich enough, and we should mandate (and fund) open deployments in all these sub-urban municipalities that won't do it on their own.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

ftth_finland4y ago· 2 in thread

> I understand the decision to enforce P2P deployments and give smaller ISPs a fair chance but it's definitely going to hinder the speed of new deployments.

Why would P2P slow down deployment?

You have the same exact amount of cables in a P2P and a P2MP topology, the only difference is the amount of fiber in the cables. There is a (small) cost savings, but that's about it.

hocuspocusOP4y ago

You're absolutely right but in practice, P2MP allowed Swisscom to connect new apartment buildings in suburban municipalities that otherwise don't have FTTH generally available.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe P2P topologies would be inefficient (i.e. too expensive) for sparsely connected areas. Conversely, the kind of hardware needed to operate XGS-PON is prohibitively expensive to small ISPs, and they're all deploying P2P topologies, and only that.

ftth_finland4y ago

The cost of fiber is so low it doesn't make much difference between P2P or P2MP, be it urban or rural. All the real cost is in having somewhere to put the fiber.

XGS-PON isn't that expensive. You can buy disaggregated XGS-PON modules in a SPF+ form factor for $1500. CPEs are $120 each.

I don't really get why Swisscom wouldn't be able to deploy P2P in low or medium density areas if they wanted to.

jagrsw4y ago

> but soon after the Comco has stopped Swisscom from using P2MP which is a big setback

Yup, I'm using some 3rd party ISP. I have from them 1Gb/s (ODC - optical direct link), and the first hop is their IP.

And also 10Gb/s via Swisscom's XGS-PON. Here the first 2-3 hops are located within Swisscom's net (except the immediate gateway). I guess init7 complained about it - i.e. paying more for using Swisscom's L3 net, instead of leasing fiber?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse