Please provide comments to the issue below as part of the 2012 WCB cost model virtual workshop for inclusion in the record. Comments are moderated for conformity to the workshop’s guidelines.
Background
Hybrid Cost Proxy Model: The HCPM sizes inter-office transport based on voice connections. The model assumes the use of state-of-the-art SONET rings. The Commission concluded there should be an allocation of a reasonable portion of the joint and common costs of the switching and inter-office functions to the cost of providing the supported services, i.e., voice telephony. Moreover, the model uses the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) database to determine host-remote relationships.
CQBAT: The CQBAT model uses a tandem switch—central office switch relationship to determine which central offices tie to which aggregation points. This information comes from the LERG database. The model assumes Ethernet-based fiber connections among wire centers and between wire centers and tandem switches, including the use of reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers (ROADMs) and wave division multiplexing (WDM) gateways. Additionally, the model connects each hierarchy to the nearest (lowest cost) Internet access point regardless of ownership. The CQBAT model also uses routing along roads to determine the cost of deploying fiber to make connections, and includes Broadband Remote Access Servers (BRAS) and/or gateway costs.
Questions for Comment
- How much of the cost of deploying fiber to provide inter-office transport should be allocated to the end-users being modeled (e.g., special access and Ethernet services)?
- The approach that CQBAT uses for inter-office transport cost is similar to what was used for the National Broadband Plan.
- If we adopt a green-field model, this appears to be a reasonable approach. Is there any reason to deviate from CQBAT's approach to modeling inter-office transport? Should any modifications be made?
- If we adopt a brown-field model, what approach should be used? What should be presumed to already exist? What proportion of such costs would be appropriate to include?
Sources
- Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-160, Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21355, paras. 76, 77 (1998) (Platform Order).
- Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-160, Tenth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20291, para. 320 (1999) (Inputs Order).
- Federal Communications Commission, The Broadband Availability Gap, Omnibus Broadband Initiative Technical Paper No. 1, 114-22 (2010), http://www.broadband.gov/plan/broadband-working-reports-technical-papers.html (OBI Technical Paper No. 1).
