Interventions Phase 2: Intervenor 503

Document Name: 2015-134.226864.2519113.Interventions Phase 2(1hzrd01!).html

Having worked in the telecommunications sector for over 40 years, the following are my observations on provision of rural service. a) Companies have no incentives to install broadband infrastructure in low density areas as the costs will never be balanced out by revenues. The old model of using long distance to subsidize rural service is, of course, no longer available, therefore new initiatives to provide "universal" service levels to all regions must provide new incentives or subsidies to do so. b) The use of wireless broadband is the most practical technology to provide rural services as the existing rural electronics infrastructure is incapable of utilization for this purpose. A good proportion of rural customer electronic nodes are already served by fibre, however as I mentioned, these "remotes" are not equipped (nor can they be) for broadband delivery. While it is reasonable to expect that in many cases the fibre facilities exist to transport the bandwidth to wireless nodes seamlessly, wireless remote nodes would have to be installed to accomplish this endeavour.c) Another consideration for provision of provision of wireless service to rural areas is the topography. While wireless coverage is relatively simple in the prairies, it is immensely difficult to achieve universal coverage in BC and other rugged topographies. Consideration must be given to the cost structure in these areas as it will never prove economically justified for companies to do so. Regarding metro/urban/suburban services:a) Fibre to the **** (FTTH) is the optimum solution for providing service to homes for the foreseeable future. Fibre based technologies are scalable to meet the demands for bandwidth over the long term and has been economically justified vs the installation of copper for a number of years. Companies have been installing some of this infrastructure, but based on demographic guidelines that do not recognize universality. b) To make the installation of universal FTTH economically feasible, there are two issues that must be managed: 1) Acceleration of writeoffs for the existing copper or coax infrastructures. The most important consideration for the future of broadband in Canada: 2) Duplication of infrastructure is NOT technically or economically justified today, i.e. ALL services can be provided by any supplier on a single fibre facility. A single, passive fibre infrastructure to the home is the only acceptable technical and economical method of providing future service to customers. The total redundancy of networks makes no sense today, yet telephone and cable companies are still installing vast amounts of duplicate infrastructure to customers. If the capital investments were shared amongst the various service providers, a single fibre infrastructure could be installed that meets all requirements. This would reduce capital investments by virtually half, reduce the costs of rented support infrastructures (i.e. poles and conduits) and reduce the ongoing churn and alteration of outside plant infrastructure driven by relocations, maintenance and demand. For example, cable companies would no longer require remote power supplies for their systems and telcos would not require the installation of various electronic remotes in neighbourhoods.Of course this would require:a) recognition that the end customer would have to supply power to the FTTH module, however the concept of "life line" service has been mute for a good number of years and can be managed as required by other means.b) There would need to be a cost sharing/rental formula established for usage of the facility similar to those established for CLECs in the copper environment. The industry has considerable experience for this based on the CLEC model and would allow the provision of service by any provider that exists today or evolves with new services.I would be happy to answer any further questions my comments generate in the future.Thank You