Some Landmark DSL decisions from PTA
Amir
can be viewed at
http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=603608&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=
Following is the summary of the PTA decisions about PTCL anti-
competitive practices with my comments on them.
>"Moreover, the regulator has directed the PTCL to open its Optic Fiber Access Network >(Ofan) to DSL operators as the latter had complained that it was not being allowed access >to the Ofan network."
An awfully good and important decision for the viability and
prevailing of the ADSL concentration in Pakistan. The PTA
responsibility just doesn't stop here it has to make sure this
decision is being implemented and should monitor closely.
>"The PTCL was directed to offer Ethernet connectivity to DSL operators in case the PTCL >launches such technology. The PTCL is also encouraged to work along with ISPs by >considering deployment of this technology for the benefit of the industry."
I don't understand what this Ethernet technology means, I thought that
PTCL has already moved its core to MPLS and using the GigE interfaces
at the Edge and Core for providing DSL Any one comments on that ?
>"The PTCL was also directed to evolve a procedure in consultation with ISPs for switching >over DSL customers of other operators to its network. Ispak, upon launching of PTCL DSL >services, had approached the Authority calling to hold back the operator from offering DSL >services because of anti-competitive prices."
I don't know what the current process is but A solution could be to
give ISPs limited config. Access to PTCL BRAS or a creation of
centralised database that pick up the Rapid Churn Order and the
automation of the whole process through the usage of Stored procedures
and Control M jobs will reduce the manual intervention and definitely
reduce the setup time.
>The Authority after analysing views of the industry and the PTCL decided that at this stage >retail broadband tariffs could not be regulated but complaints regarding anti-competitive >practices to be duly reviewed and investigated in accordance with the current legislative and >regulatory provisions.
Not just decisions but needed some examples of real implementation
>It approved the PTCL's reduction in wholesale DSL line rent from Rs
217 per month per >loop (exclusive taxes) to Rs 150 per month per loop
(exclusive taxes) directing that the >operator in future would obtain
prior approval before announcing any changes in wholesale >DSL line
rent.
With this decision a middling user should see a real drop in the DSL
prices, with this decision the ISPs should stop blaming PTCL for
everything and should come up with some real action.
>The regulator observed that the PTCL may continue to charge its bandwidth for metro rings >on actual ring distance. However, the PTCL shall provide comprehensive Service Level >Agreements (SLAs) to the Authority, within 60 days from the date of this decision. The >SLAs shall at least cover the quality of service of bandwidth facilities for data and voice >services, along with penalties for not complying with the given quality parameters.
Not just PTCL but the other stakeholders should be involved in the
formation of such type of SLA's
>Telecom operators are encouraged to build their own collocation space or rent an alternative >space from any third party. In case, ISPs establish their own PoPs near PTCL exchanges, >the PTCL shall allow them to bring their copper cables inside PTCL's MDF for interconnect >to PTCL's copper loop for delivering DSL services.
Another landmark decision, ISPAK stop whinging and it's the time for
some genuine actions from your side.
Overall the decisions are fantastic (at least by the read) and if
implemented fistfully it will have a appealing impact on the overall
DSL concentration and affordability in Pakistan. With the
implementation a real competitive campaign should emerge on the
Pakistani DSL arena.
Tee Emm
>"The PTCL was directed to offer Ethernet connectivity to DSL operators in case the PTCL launches such technology. The PTCL is also encouraged to work along with ISPs by considering deployment of this technology for the benefit of the industry."
I don't understand what this Ethernet technology means, I thought that
PTCL has already moved its core to MPLS and using the GigE interfaces
at the Edge and Core for providing DSL Any one comments on that ?
PTCL, to date, offers E1 (and E3s, at times) to ISPs to interconnect their respective DSLAMs placed in the various exchanges within a city back to their data center where they have the transit bandwidth being terminated in bulk. This has been an ugly set up for many years now. ISPs who had put up dialup RAS could live with these E1s but those who entered the DSL space were the worst hit. They had to resort to E1 bonding via clunky inverse multiplexing solutions and as a result, Pakistani market churned out the one-of-its-kind DSL that 'ran' at 32/64 kbps.
Various DSL operators still do not interconnect with each other directly (neither peering, not via an Internet Exchange) and this results in all bandwidth being offered to the users being the transit Internet bandwidth which is expensive and bad design. Ethernet connectivity, if/when provided by PTCL, will also tremendously help towards realizing peering arrangement between providers and (even) establishment of a nuetral, not-to-profit Internet Exchange.
PTCL had not gone the GigE/MPLS route even for its own needs - until recently (the PIE upgrade we talked in another thread). It would be interesting to see PTA getting PTCL share that infrastructure too with the DSL providers. As this 'Ethernet' set up is not ready yet, PTCL had a parallel system in place and that is the Huawei powered OFAN that is now present almost everywhere in Karachi. These fiber rings provide optical Ethernet connectivity to the high concentration DSLAMs placed in the outdoors of Karachi's (business-wise) juicy areas.
>"The PTCL was also directed to evolve a procedure in consultation with ISPs for switching >over DSL customers of other operators to its network. Ispak, upon launching of PTCL DSL >services, had approached the Authority calling to hold back the operator from offering DSL >services because of anti-competitive prices."
I don't know what the current process is but A solution could be to
give ISPs limited config. Access to PTCL BRAS or a creation of
centralised database that pick up the Rapid Churn Order and the
automation of the whole process through the usage of Stored procedures
and Control M jobs will reduce the manual intervention and definitely
reduce the setup time.
Or they can go the shared DSLAM model which will tunnel the session of each ISP user to its respective data-center. However, I believe the major challenge in the DSL domain is the management of the copper pair and this make infrastructure sharing even more dispute-prone. For now, DSL operators get the copper pair physically connected to their systems each time a user switch between DSL providers.
The above point, however, revolves around the fact that the ISPs want PTCL not to touch or counter-offer their existing customers which they say they have gathered very painfully over a long time now. PTCL's drooling towards these customers is obvious as the number of users willing to pay 4 figures for internet access in Pakistan are really low and equipped with the ability to drop down the prices, they are tempted to these easy targets.
>It approved the PTCL's reduction in wholesale DSL line rent from Rs
217 per month per loop (exclusive taxes) to Rs 150 per month per loop
(exclusive taxes) directing that the operator in future would obtain
prior approval before announcing any changes in wholesale DSL line
rent.
With this decision a middling user should see a real drop in the DSL
prices, with this decision the ISPs should stop blaming PTCL for
everything and should come up with some real action.
Average DSL rates are still above Rs 1,000 per month. A cost reduction of Rs 67 doesn't dent that very impressively. However, there are other areas that ISPs need to focus such as peering, forming an IX and better billing like 95th percentile packages so that they can reduct costs. However, it is certainly true that ISPs in Pakistan have been spoiled by having a lousy PTCL to blame for every wrong, including even their irregular bowel movements.
The regulator observed that the PTCL may continue to charge its bandwidth for metro rings on actual ring distance. However, the PTCL shall provide comprehensive Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to the Authority, within 60 days from the date of this decision. The SLAs shall at least cover the quality of service of bandwidth facilities for data and voice services, along with penalties for not complying with the given quality parameters.
Not just PTCL but the other stakeholders should be involved in the
formation of such type of SLA's
This is interesting. Earlier, PTCL had a point-to-point distance formula. When you asked for an E1 between Gulshan-e-Iqbal exchange and Pak-Capital Exchange (old sabzi mandi), you paid for just the 3 to 4 km of the distance multiplied the E1 tariff per km/year. With PTCL's internal transmission now being powered by a DWDM rings, they had been charging for the ring lengths to arrive at the distance between the two points. This was largely detested by the smaller ISPs who had to now pay for the ring distance. My take on this is against PTCL because how PTCL designs its rings is largely an internal design issue. The customers are paying for the service. If DWDM and self-healing rings provide stability to the service, PTCL should always be allowed to offer two tiers of service (restorable and non-restorable) but still on the crow-flying distance and not on how Mr Allah Bukhsh designed the ring to achieve the resiliency.
>Telecom operators are encouraged to build their own collocation space or rent an alternative >space from any third party. In case, ISPs establish their own PoPs near PTCL exchanges, >the PTCL shall allow them to bring their copper cables inside PTCL's MDF for interconnect >to PTCL's copper loop for delivering DSL services.
Another landmark decision, ISPAK stop whinging and it's the time for
some genuine actions from your side.
It is not just ISPAK who had been whining about about this issue. The entire industry, even the mighty cellcos has been brought to their knees with a single practice of creating problems in interconnections at PTCL. Fortunately, this has been a kick-started for much of the new-wave of cellcos and others planning their own data centers and taking their major customers with them to the new places. A few consistent similar efforts should quickly neutralize the PTCL exchanges from being the interconnect paradise to just another interconnect places. To appreciate the gravity of the issue, imagine that small WLL operators (such as my previous employer Telecard) wanting to switch to a better (cheaper) long haul provider (say Mobilink's new long haul transmission business wing) were denied the interconnect with Mobilink because they were at colocated at PTCL (for the bulky DIUs interconnecting them with the PTCL's voice switches). PTCL had a simple draconian rule which said that if you are colocated at PTCL, you could only interconnect with PTCL - both for voice and data. The above ruling by PTCL should pave way of the removal of similar ugly conditions currently being imposed on the entire industry by PTCL.
-T
Shiraz
"2.3.5 It was also observed that as per provisions of the Policy
(clause 5.2.5), PTCL is
only obliged to offer shared access to its last mile copper and not
the OFAN. Therefore,
for PTCL to make further investment in OFAN, it would be appropriate
that unbundling
obligation should not be placed for initial few years."
These initial few years can start from "5" to an undefined number.
For Ethernet (in actual providing Ethernet connectivity between PTCL
exchanges to operator instead of E1/E3/DS3):
"2.5.3 Authority's Findings: The Authority noted that PTCL is allowing
connectivity between its exchanges as per the available network
resources. However, in
order to provide Ethernet connectivity by PTCL, it primarily needs to
place Ethernet
routers / interfaces in the exchanges. The Authority considers that it
is not appropriate to
enforce PTCL to deploy a technology, it has not implemented for its own network.
However, in future if such technology is launched by PTCL then other
operators should
have access to such facility."
--
Shiraz Anjum Malik
Cell: +92-300-8541239
--
Shiraz Anjum Malik
Cell: +92-300-8541239
Majid Farid
let ISP use their fiber and DLSMA to resell their service . They had
two mode to resell the fiber and DSL services to ISP.
The ISP can get DS3, 10mbps,100mbps and Ether channel to the ISP data
center / centers. Each DSLAM was bridged on VLAN to the ISP. Then they
provided following service
1. PPPoE Based DSL service
2. VLAN based DSL service
3. Transparent LAN services (T1, 10mpbs , 100 mbps)
The PPPoE based service was designed pretty good acutally. The PPPoE
normally ran between the client and the BAS and from the BAS they had
a L2TP tunnel all the way back to ISP router. So it is PPPoE over
L2TP. On ISP end you would see a L2TP tunnel on the router and then
L2TP sessions for each customer who logs in/
The VLAN based DSL service was bridged Layer2 VLAN across the core
network to ISP router/switch. There was no PPPoE or L2TP involved.
TLAN services were setup exactly the same way we just getting a VLAN
id from Bell while on the customer side no configuration was needed.
The setup was very stable and the easy of provisioning a new service
area aka DSLAM was amazing. The only issue we normally ran into was
MTU oversize which was not reported by other ISP's who were not on
Ethernet connection but were using ATM as lat mile.
Not sure where PTCL stand on this but It would be intresting what this
new CEO does has he looks very passionate on data comm side of PTCL...
/Majid
> On 8/10/07, Amir <amir.raj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A summary of the news clipping appear on Today's Business.Full news
> > can be viewed at
>
> >http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=603608&currPageNo=1&query=&sear...