The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive

[Marvin A Sirbu <sirbu+@andrew.cmu.edu>]

Excerpts from bboard.atm: 23-Apr-97 Re: RBOCs Reaching Limits by Xing
Chen@techmail.gdc.c 
> As far as I understand, according to the "Telecommunications Act of 1996",
> CLEC and ISP should be able to colocate their equipments into the CO with
> certain restrictions such as space, power, etc. It is likely that these
> equipments are xDSL termination units or dslams. The POTS lines could be
> directed to the voice switches while the data (probably over PPP or ATM
> depending on which xDSL technology, DSL, HDSL, ADSL, ...) will be switched
> or routed to ISPs. Could someone confirm this? But anyway, I don't think
> you have copper wires between RBOC's POP and ISP's POP.

This is indeed what the Telecom Act says, and UUNET is already taking
advantage of the provisions to provide xDSL service via colocation on an
experimental basis. They also have a trial underway in Canada where they
are colocating in Bell Canada offices.

The key issues are the price the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)
will charge for the unbundled loop.  At present, unbundled loops are
available "as is" which means there is no commitment by the ILEC as to
no bridge taps on the loop, guage changes, etc.  To date, I do not
believe any ILEC has proposed an offering of unbundled "qualified" loops
which they will commit to being capable of carrying xDSL traffic. 
Indeed, I don't believe the ILECs necessarily have the mechanisms
themselves for identifying in advance which loops can and which loops
cannot carry xDSL short of putting xDSL modems on either end and testing.

Marvin Sirbu