Talk:Local-loop unbundling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Network use[edit]

does the other licensed operator use its wires and cable network or always uses the incumbents cable network?-- 1 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)abhi

Either is possible, depending on the business strategy of the new entrant and the regulatory environment. Thomas fischer 3 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
In general under local loop unbundling the other user pays for the use of copper local loop and then arranges use of backhaul as a seperate business decision. This can be its own fibre or another company's fibre that it pays for the use of.

Request for clarification: FCC Reversal?[edit]

I came to this page looking for information on a claim that I'd recently heard about the FCC reversing its position on LLU and allowing ILECs to not lease loops to competitors, and that this consequently had reduced the carriers that customers could purchase (for example) DSL service from, in some areas. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I wondered if someone could confirm or deny; the information on LLU in the U.S. in the article is a little sparse, and it would be nice to just know what the current situation and climate is like, and what direction things look like they're going in. Any volunteers? --Kadin2048 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Deny- so far, carriers must continue with LLU; if they overbuild with fiber, then they must offer to sell the copper to other companies first before pulling it.--Johnh123 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sale of AOL UK[edit]

The purchase of AOL UK by Carphone Warehouse (CPW) for £370m has significantly changed the UK LLU market making CPW the leading LLU operator.

  • It should be noted that the acquisition process is not due to complete until the end of December 2006 {primarily due to EU competition authority clearance) and so it is unlikely that CPW will release much information on plans for LLU until 2007.
  • It has also been stated in the press that AOL UK Audience business will remain a distinct organization and brand but it is not yet clear if the AOL UK Access business (that the LLU programme is part of) will be fully integrated into CPW.
  1. "Carphone Warehouse buying AOL UK". BBC News. 2006-10-11. Retrieved 2006-10-11. 
  2. "Carphone Warehouse to acquire Time Warner's AOL Internet access business in the UK for £370 million". AOL UK Press Release. 2006-10-11. Retrieved 2006-10-27. 
  3. "Carphone Warehouse to acquire Time Warner's AOL Internet access business in the UK for £370 million". Carphone Warehouse Press Release. 2006-10-11. Retrieved 2006-10-27. 

Ashley VH 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins of LLU in the EU[edit]

I believe that this article is incorrect, did LLU in the EU not 'officially' start on the 30th June 1987 with a green paper suggesting that telecoms should be opened to competition? Which I think was followed on the 28th June 1990 by 90/387/EEC and 90/388/EEC? 98dmalcolm 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

LLU is a necessary evil?[edit]

I am quite interested in how Hong Kong has reversed it's stance on LLU. My understanding is that the Type II Interconnection policy they had in place from 1995-2004 requires service providers to negotiate interconnections between themselves on a commercial basis. And now they are withdrawing this requirement.

I guess you have to know some of the context that this legislation was introduced - apartment blocks were built, and connected by enterprising companies to their networks. With an explosion in the number of seperate networks, none of which were inter-connected, there was a problem where being connected to the network would not guarantee point-to-point interconnectivity from one building to another.

But I believe that most importantly, incumbent operators have the opportunity to extract monopoly rents, and consumers were stuck with the provider who serviced their buildings. Offering consumer choice = a good thing IMO, and preventing abuse of market power is something the public expect regulators to do.

My guess is that after 10 years or so of mandatory LLU, the industry has become so used to interconnecting and "peering" with one another that they do this as a matter of normal course of business, and even without stimulus from the industry regulator, they would do this to maintain the status quo (you peer with me, I peer with you). Izamryan 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

United States[edit]

"Prices are set through a market mechanisms." Should it be "a market mechanism" or "market mechanisms"? Either way, what does it mean, if anything? Dadge (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)