Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: Weaver on May 24, 2016, 05:43:30 PM
-
Please think carefully about what can be done
http://www.revk.uk/2016/05/the-20cn-dilemma.html
It would be a good idea to also voice any helpful ideas directly on RevK's blog at the above address.
-
:hmm: Unfortunately I don't have any sensible suggestions, at this moment. It clearly needs some thought . . . :-\
-
If it's costing A&A so much, is that because of its small size, or are other ISPs likewise suffering but more able to absorb within overall costs, especially BT family? Would not that seem to be a hidden elsemt of cross subsidy?
-
Looks like that's us goosed, we're on 20CN and there's no plan to upgrade the exchange. All the money and effort is going on FTTC, which won't reach anyone outside the village. So looks like the options are going to be find an ISP who will continue to provide, or go satellite at the "subsidised" rates offered through the local authority.
Edit - Post Office still offering, Zen already ruled out because their prices go through the roof on 20CN. Another question arises, can an ISP terminate within the initial contract term? I seem to remember other ISPs sending out price rises in-contract, giving the users the option of leaving without penalty.
-
Isn't this what regulators are for? The monopolist runs riot.
-
Ummm.. could this not in part have something to do with OFCOM's Broadband Access Market Classification? (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadband_access_market.htm) The remaining 20CN exchanges are usually Market 1.
Market 1 : [20CN] adsl is provisioned by BT Wholesale only. Their prices are fixed by OFCOM and no cheaper alternative LLU is available.
Its why some ISPs such as Plusnet charge more for Market 1 exchanges, because there are 2 price bandings A&B. Its also why the likes of Sky and TT now aren't interested in taking on any customers who are on Market 1 exchanges. Not only do they deem them not profitable to put in their own kit, but not even profitable enough to take on any customers from them at all.
Its OFCOM that set these rules on pricing. The idea was to encourage LLU providers to go into exchanges and be able to charge less than BT, by forcing BTw to charge a higher rate. Instead what has happened (as anyone with half a clue could guess that LLU would cherry pick) is actually to the detriment to customers on those exchanges because OFCOM are forcing BT to set a higher rate... and the LLU's wont go in because there's no profit in the smaller exchanges.
As I said at the time when OFCOM first brought out the regulation.
Many people will think the above unfair, but those are the rules as defined by the regulatory bodies, which has now resulted in a 'two-tier' broadband in the UK where pricing may likely vary depending upon your location.
I'm sure its OFCOM who decides which exchanges pay Market A and Market B prices.
If AAISP say they are making a loss on those exchanges, then they may have to charge more. :(
---
ETA
Its going to be much harder for the smaller ISP's such as AAISP who will have to maintain a 20CN pipe regardless of the number of users.
If the SP is large enough to have a few thousand users sharing that pipe, then costs to the SP will be cheaper. If AAISP only has a hundred or so still on 20CN, then costs will be exceedingly high.
-
Just out of interest I was trying to check the costs for a 20CN central v a 21CN host link, but I couldn't find the costs for hosts links and I need to get to bed.
He should be using IPsC for the 20CN and the annual rental cost for a 622Mbps central pipe is £1,028,920.00.. which is actually cheaper than £1,496,760 for an old 622Mbps Central that he will previously had to pay for many years.
The problem will be that BTw do aim to upgrade all exchanges to 21CN, but after the latest batch of 21CN conversions he probably hasnt got sufficient EU's still on 20CN to make it economically viable. The plan is to eventually retire all of them - from last year "20C retirement now in place on 2,762 exchanges with migrations continuing"
If he does want to retain 20CN, it may be cheaper to white label from the likes of say Enta or Murphx who have sufficient EU's to make a pipe more cost effective.
-
BT's backhaul prices are absolutely insane, even on 21CN they significantly higher than typical transit costs.
BT have got away with it because of the lack of wholesale backhaul competition offering the same thing.
All those years when adsl max was "the thing" and uk isp's commonly traffic shaped etc. blaming heavy users when it was the excessive backhaul costs been the real reason.
RevK might get somewhere contacting ofcom, if they really on the side of the consumer they would step in and put a cap on the costs from BT, the reality is tho they probably dont care and nothing would be done, sadly I think AAISP only have 2 options.
Either eat up the losses, or abandon the 20CN product, if they try the no profit route, masses will leave at the 3x price increase and that will then cause a domino affect of it going up for others which then will trigger more leaving and so on.
kitz I suspect with a few hundred users he has one of the much more expensive smaller pipes, he hasnt got enough left to have a 622mbps pipe. Assuming avg sync speed of 6mbit/sec and 300 users and assuming every user is maxing out their line at peak that would be 1800mbit. the reality is tho that actual capacity required will be much lower. I expect in the region of 300mbit at the absolute most. He does give enough figures to roughly calculate what capacity they paying for now tho, so at £138 per mbit, 300 users, £60 per line, lets say £45 per line taking away port and line costs that would be approx 300kbit per line of capacity. 300x300kbit = 90000kbit of capacity approx? Way below a 622mbps central.
Weaver are you on 20CN?
-
@Chrysalis - no, I'm now on 21CN since Xmas.
I can't believe what a lucky escape I've had. I would have gone mad if I were still one of the unfortunate victims of this horrific situation. I really need my multiple line bonding, and I use IPv6 all the time, for self-educational purposes.
(I suppose I would have switched entirely over to AA's 3G data SIM service, which I'm already using on one of those our iPads, but that would mean having to use NAT, losing IPv6 (because for some reason AA hasn't managed to set it up directly over the Three 3G service. But the traffic charges might be scary.)
-
The fact that I've escaped should be no excuse for complacency. I should write to my MP / MSP, although I'm not sure what force it can have seeing as I'm not one of those affected. If AA only give people one month's notice then that's not much time to get a political initiative going.
Ofcom needs a bomb putting under it. This is a clear case of them being asleep at the wheel. How could this have been allowed to happen? Unfortunately there time is very limited. An order to BT to level their prices, a non-geographic, USO-style ruling, that's what's needed yesterday. And if AA can see that relief is on the way, and guaranteed, then perhaps they will feel able to stay the axe.
ISPs are not mere commodities when they are like AA with their thinking, personal, non-corporate-robotic service. They are not simply interchangeable just like swapping electricity provider, although that's how a lot of people see it, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, and it's _all_ the politicians know.
Who can I write to?
-
Ofcom have been focused on helping LLU providers, they say they there to help consumers but any benefit has been indirectly due to the occasional benefits LLU providers can bring, their rare intervention on things like opting out of contracts is usually only in response to strong public pressure so their hand gets forced. As you said any political or ofcom action would need several months at least to do something so it would likely be too late for AAISP customers. I also believe none of the big isp's have dumped 20CN users and that is probably all ofcom will be bothered about. The big isp's likely are able to sustain 20CN customers due to sheer numbers allowing the costs to be swamped up.
-
It will only take one of the big ISPs to dump 20CN users and the others will refuse to take new 20CN users because of the effect a large number of them coming in would have on their bottom line. In all likelihood it would leave BT Retail as the only 20CN provider - it would be too embarrassing for them to say they were dumping 20CN as the lines from BT Wholesale are too expensive!
-
He should be using IPsC for the 20CN
He is. See http://www.revk.uk/2016/05/20cn-reprieve.html?showComment=1464164833400#c2819754206168417257
-
Now see RevK's update:
http://www.revk.uk/2016/05/20cn-reprieve.html
-
Apologies for my ignorance - "IPsC" ?
-
IPStream Connect http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#IPSC
-
Ummm.. could this not in part have something to do with OFCOM's Broadband Access Market Classification? (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadband_access_market.htm) The remaining 20CN exchanges are usually Market 1.
That's certainly a factor, for example that was why my Plusnet price was higher than their normal deals. However at least for Zen the critical factor seems to be 20CN vs 21CN. I conclude that from running quotes for an address (the local takeaway) on our own exchange Kennethmont, and and another takeaway on the exchange serving our previous house - Udny. Both exchanges as listed on Samknows as Market 1 Pricing Band E, and on the BTW checker as Market A. Neither has LLU, but Udny is 21CN, Kennethmont 20CN. Zen's unlimited price for Udny is £16/month after the free 12 months. For Kennethmont they don't offer unlimited, price for 200GB is £25.80 with no introductory offer.
-
One thing I don't understand with IPSC is why the ISP has to have separate host links for the 20CN IPSC and 21CN users (Plusnet certainly have that and ready what RevK has posted they do to). 21CN ADSL users and FTTx users share the same host links so why not IPSC? That must be adding to the ISP costs.
-
Note I'd started to type this at 8am and then had to go out. I'd left this without hitting the Post button because I wanted to see if I could find the prices for host links anywhere. I note that since there has been a lot of further replies, so I'll hit post button now and then read all the other responses.
--------------
BT's backhaul prices are absolutely insane, even on 21CN they significantly higher than typical transit costs.
Unfortunately you can not compare backhaul bandwidth to transit costs:(
Different kettle of fish. Transit pipes are big fat things that go to a specific central location serving millions, pure TCP/IP and practically a case of plug in to their router and away you go.
Backhaul has to cover far more remote locations and you simply cant equate the cost of connecting to a pipe in a CoLo center, to backhaul costs which have to reach each and every exchange. As well as the switches and routers, you also need equipment like MSANs and RAS, RADIUS oh and WDM multiplexors for backhaul which are very expensive.
Access technology for DSL cant be compared to normal routing. Access & Backhaul costs are always going to be way more expensive than Core costs, which in turn will be more expensive than transit.
BT have got away with it because of the lack of wholesale backhaul competition offering the same thing.
Other backhaulers arent that much cheaper! Even RevK himself admits there's little difference between BT's 21CN and TT's backhaul costs. The reason why some people like TT backhaul is their DLM is more configurable. The problem with is 20CN because of OFCOM setting the pricing on Market 1 exchanges, which keeps the price higher. All 20CN exchanges are Market 1.
All those years when adsl max was "the thing" and uk isp's commonly traffic shaped etc. blaming heavy users when it was the excessive backhaul costs been the real reason.
There is no need to tell me about why ISPs had to start capping. :D I do believe I was one of the very first to point out that it was down to the cost of backhauls & CBC as to why certain ISPs had started to put caps or traffic shaping in place.
In 2006 I wrote the capacity report for another website. That article was widely covered and caused much discussion on the likes of ADSLguide (TBB) and ISPr etc at the time. I was even contacted by the BBC about it who covered it on radio. No-one had ever attempted to do anything like that before. The original report was long and more detailed, but there's still a cut down version still on my site - Wholesale cost of ADSL in the UK (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adsl_cost.htm). It was a big eye opener at the time for many people.
I expect in the region of 300mbit at the absolute most.
I haven't analysed Rev K's figures to work out how much capacity he'd need. I didn't bother doing so - only he can do that because he will have the breakdown figures regarding more specific usage of those EU's still on 20CN. He will need to ensure there is sufficient capacity to run the service at peak without causing noticeable contention.
AAISP aren't what I'd call a typical ISP, therefore 'typical usage of the masses' are unlikely to apply. Also knowing RevK's commitment to service and the customers experience, I doubt he would be happy letting 'his network' run anywhere near as contended as the likes of the larger ISPs.
Contention is a weird game.. the more users you have the better, as it becomes more cost effective. Datastream was an epic fail because the EU numbers were too small. Exactly same contention ratio would quite happily work once you upped the scale of EU's. Therefore I doubt whether any back of a cig packet type calculation would work for AAISP.
I suspect with a few hundred users he has one of the much more expensive smaller pipes, he hasnt got enough left to have a 622mbps pipe.
Smaller pipes arent more expensive. The options for 20CN L2TP centrals are and always have been 622 or 155.
622 Mbps = £1,028,920
155 Mbps = £ 221,280
He may even have one of the newer IPSC host links, but as I said in my post above I couldnt find a price list for those which is why I'd used a 622 Central
if they really on the side of the consumer they would step in and put a cap on the costs from BT,
As I said last night, its OFCOM that doing the opposite and ensures there is a 2 tier charging system.
It fixes the MINIMUM cost that BTw can charge. OCOM will not allow BT wholesale less than figures they set.
It can be see quite clearly when you look at WBC node costs for IPSC.
Contracted bandwidth per Mbit/s per node.
Market A £40.15
Market B £122.64
I take it that you have heard of the Margin Squeeze Test (MST) put in place by OFCOM. The aim of MST is to ensure that BTw charges more than a competitor could. The idea behind MST is to make it easier for competition to come in, knowing that BT will not undercut LLU charges. BTw can only charge less for Market A exchanges which have been deregulated by OFCOM and its OFCOM keeping the prices high for Market B pricing.
Perhaps you can see now why the likes of Ignition, wombat and I say that OFCOM regulation in some respects is not good for consumer.. and even some people said that deregulation may be a better option that splitting off Openreach.
OFCOMs approach has done nothing to help the smaller ISP's - look how many have gone to the wall since they started meddling.
All OFCOM appears to care about is making it cheap to the masses by supporting the whims of 'LLU' SPs and not bothering to listen enough to the likes of what I'd call proper ISPs like AAISP and Zen who rely on BTw to provide their services. :no:
-
It will only take one of the big ISPs to dump 20CN users
Didn't TalkTalk practically do that last year? They sold off all their non LLU customers to Daisy.
-
kitz its actually the other way, e.g. if I buy cogent bandwidth, its not just one big pipe to one location, they have POPs and links to other transit carriers all over the world. In terms of miles covered, there is no comparison. BT just cover one little island which has concentrated areas of population, on a worldwide scale its a pittance. Carriers like level3, and abovenet e.g. laid cables under the ocean.
Did you read rev's blog? he explains it anyway.
It used to be the case the smaller pipes were more expensive than 622s per mbit, hence my comment on that.
quote from cogent's site.
Cogent's network stretches over 190 markets throughout 41 countries in North America, Europe and Asia, with over 56,100 route miles of long-haul fiber and over 28,300 miles of metropolitan fiber.
BT's 20CN backhaul doesnt cover anywhere near that kind of distance or area, the price is simply ramped up, partially because they were forced to reduce the port costs by ofcom, and partially because of profiteering on their monopoly.
-
21CN ADSL users and FTTx users share the same host links so why not IPSC?
FTTC uses the 21CN backhaul and MPLS core. They have separate bRAS and different network topology. 20CN doesnt have AP (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#AP)s and EP (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#EP)s.
There are several areas where an exchange may still be 20CN, but for those vdsl lines they will use 21CN because all FTTC cabs are connected to a head-end exchange which is 21CN.
-
I dont think sky and BTr will drop 20CN customers.
BT wouldnt for obvious reasons, sky wouldnt as they prepared to lose money on that to gain tv customers, plus sky's 20CN is congested so they under paying for backhaul as well on that.
One thing to remember with aaisp, is because they dont profiteer on land line rental and call revenue they dont really have other revenue from customers to smother the cost, so it makes sense they would be more sensitive to unprofitable areas.
-
kitz its actually the other way, e.g. if I buy cogent bandwidth, its not just one big pipe to one location, they have POPs and links to other transit carriers all over the world.
Nope - you missed the point. The PoPs are all big. Data Centre to Data Center [typo intended] & major city to major city. Carrying millions of users at the same time.
Backhaul is kind of the final mile(s). Less users.
We have to rely on SPs/BTw to get traffic to our home to the Internet PoPs. Its always been the way that 'Internet traffic' is cheaper than Core traffic... which is cheaper than backhaul.
Local access is dearer - regardless if its BT or not. It would be fine if we all lived in major cities and could plug directly in to those big fat pipes... but we cant and we need someone to bring that access closer to home. Its the mesh reaching out to all the individual homes that needs a lot more miles of pipes than major city to major city. If you add up the miles of the mesh pipes going to all exchanges, its going to be far more than say one fat pipe from London to NY. Thats not counting the specialist Access equipment that DSL needs such as bRAS, DSLAMs/MSANs etc.
It used to be the case the smaller pipes were more expensive than 622s per mbit,
No never. The 622Mbps pipes have always on the face of it looked more expensive than 155's and a single 622 pipe has always cost more than 4 x 155 Mbps pipes.
Way back in 2005, I gave the reason why this is - the 622 pipes are more efficient as they can carry about the same amount of bandwidth as 5 x 155Mbps pipes (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/BTCentrals.htm) due to having less overheads..
-
distance covered is the prime factor of cost and BT has laid less distance.
Seems like you saying me and revk dont know what we on about :p
Regardless of this, are you trying to say its cost BT more than 100x to cover the UK than for a tier1 transit provider to cover multiple continents?
Not to mention BT wont have laid new backhaul for all their exchange coverage, in many cases they already had it in place.
By the way the backhaul cost doesnt cover the local loop, if thats what you referring to about a mesh covering individual homes, it doesnt even cover the virtual pipes in the exchanges either, they are all covered by other revenue such as line rental and port rental.
Few things to consider here.
The distance covered of cabling is prime factor of cost, doesnt matter if its only for one user or 100k users, as BT standardise the cost. So the only relevant number is per mbit.
Even tho many POPs are in cities (not all are), where do you think the cable goes in between the cities? the bulk of cabling laid will be outside of cities e.g. a cable from leeds to london will go through the countryside.
Its cheaper to lay cables outside busy areas, e.g. cheaper to put in a field than under a road or pavement.
BT will come up with many excuses but the simple reason they charge over 100x of alternative providers is their duty to maximise profits for their shareholders. This is coming from someone who has dealt with transit providers directly, and even if you ignore me you have revK the managing director of AAISP saying it. In simple terms BT are a transit provider, some isp's such as entanet, talktalk, sky have chosen to not use BT transit. But the smaller players who dont have the capital to go an alternative route use BT transit at a financial penalty.
Also to rent BT/openreach transit between exchange and more centralised POPs is actually quite a lot cheaper than the quoted price, e.g. sky rent's capacity from openreach between exchanges and for that they pay nowhere near £138/mbit. The last mile isnt to do with the price.
-
He may even have one of the newer IPSC host links ...
He says in one of the comments that they are. That raises a question, your diagram shows a single physical connection reaching 20CN, 21CN and FTTC, which would appear to contradict the point about separate costs for 20CN. Is the 20CN stuff carried on a separate VLAN/VP/VRF or something, so logically a separate connection (with a separate price) even though it's on the same physical link?
I still wonder about ISP contracts. The first blog post suggested that they were considering unilaterally cancelling connections, or offering choice of price rise or cancellation. While I appreciate the commercial position, that sounds quite one sided. I assume no service provider would take it lying down if a customer told them they'd decided to pay a lower price, and giving the option of the ISP ending the contract if they didn't want to accept the price drop. So are ISP contracts one sided, enforceable against the end user but not the provider?
-
Contracted bandwidth per Mbit/s per node.
Market A £40.15
Market B £122.64
I take it that you have heard of the Margin Squeeze Test (MST) put in place by OFCOM. The aim of MST is to ensure that BTw charges more than a competitor could. The idea behind MST is to make it easier for competition to come in, knowing that BT will not undercut LLU charges. BTw can only charge less for Market A exchanges which have been deregulated by OFCOM and its OFCOM keeping the prices high for Market B pricing.
Err, but it's the Market B exchanges which are the deregulated ones, and the Market A exchanges are the ones with no LLU competition. Probably all or most Market B exchanges will have been upgraded to WBC anyway.
-
Also, if an ISP is using WBMC Shared, doesn't that mean they won't have to pay for things like 20CN centrals separately, they only have to pay for the WBMC host links, but have to pay for WBC and IPSC bandwidth separately (and separately at each host link).
WBMC (WBC) Total Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge: £48.55 per Mbit/s per month
WBMC (IPsC) Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge (Market B): £131.20 per Mbit/s per month
WBMC (IPsC) Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge (Market A): £63.56 per Mbit/s per month
-
The distance covered of cabling is prime factor of cost, doesnt matter if its only for one user or 100k users, as BT standardise the cost.
Although installation of the cable regardless of the bandwidth it can carry. Transit is cheap because it carries more bandwidth and millions of users to be able to bring costs down.
Transit is to major cities, billions of Gbs going over their links. Millions of users to share the cost of that pipe.
Backhaul is thinner and each backhaul is shared by one hell of a lot less users than transit.
If you think backhaul should be the same price to as transit, then why the heck dont Sky or who-ever go to all the exchanges. Its because those smaller exchanges dont have sufficient users to ofset the cost to provision the backhaul.
As I said in my earlier post TT backhaul is much the same price as 21CN backhaul. RevK will admit that. If backhaul or even core is so cheap why arent more doing it? None of the other Core transit suppliers are that much cheaper than BTw.
The reason transit is so cheap is bulk of numbers makes it profitable, plus laying of transatlantic cables are heavily funded by both financial and IT sectors who are willing to throw money in to the pot.
Its a world wide thing, pick a country.. USA.. Austrailia.. Africa... etc. Backhaul cost is always substantially more for backhaul than transit. Thats just the way it is and a fact of life. Its NOT a BT thing as you seem to think it is.
RevK does not say it costs the same to provision backhaul than it does transit. His actual words were
To put it in to context I could pay a transit provider that will guarantee no packet loss sending packets to thousands of interconnect points around the globe at a rate of under £1/Mb/s/month, but BT charge £138/Mb/s/month to send packets "best efforts" to a few hundred 20CN only telephone exchanges in the UK.
----
Not to mention BT wont have laid new backhaul for all their exchange coverage, in many cases they already had it in place.
What was in place and from when?
MSiP, the ATM backhaul was built 90's. It was built to provide leased lines and used 155Mb pipes for its backhaul. The 20CN uses 155/622 pipes for backhaul. They didnt build the Core (Colossus) until the late 90's. When BT first rolled out DSL a typical VP was just 2Mbps and bandwidth was scarce.
The reason why 20CN cant have adsl2+ is their backhauls couldn't cope with the traffic and there is insufficient capacity. It would be easy enough to put in an MSAN (in fact they probably do have MSANs in that are able to do ADSL2+), but the backhaul is the bottleneck. Connect an MSAN full of adsl2+ users to the ATM backhaul and it would soon have problems. :(
In early 2000 BT realised they were going to have to do something drastic. MSIP was not future proof and was straining running 8Mbps connections. Realising that 'fibre' was on the horizon they knew they would have to build a brand new and totally separate network - and why they built the totally new 21CN several years ago
-
Err, but it's the Market B exchanges which are the deregulated ones, and the Market A exchanges are the ones with no LLU competition. Probably all or most Market B exchanges will have been upgraded to WBC anyway.
Apologies, my mistake and me seeing the lower cost for Market A from their pricing list and getting them mixed up, knowing that its supposedly unregulated that are cheaper.
I think BT may also be getting them mixed up too on their latest price list and transposed the figures... What the heck has happened to their pricing?
This is from the WBC Tarriff dated 1st Jan 2016
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00
Yet this is the latest WBC Tarriff dated 14th of April 2016
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
Have they messed with the Market A & B figures big time, or have they got them the wrong way round on the latest price guide.
-
Also, if an ISP is using WBMC Shared, doesn't that mean they won't have to pay for things like 20CN centrals separately, they only have to pay for the WBMC host links, but have to pay for WBC and IPSC bandwidth separately (and separately at each host link).
WBMC (WBC) Total Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge: £48.55 per Mbit/s per month
WBMC (IPsC) Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge (Market B): £131.20 per Mbit/s per month
WBMC (IPsC) Best Efforts Contracted Bandwidth charge (Market A): £63.56 per Mbit/s per month
If you have a host link of say 500Mbps at one location, then no you dont also pay for a central for customers coming in via that link.
Just out of interest I was trying to check the costs for a 20CN central v a 21CN host link, but I couldn't find the costs for hosts links and I need to get to bed.
He should be using IPsC for the 20CN and the annual rental cost for a 622Mbps central pipe is £1,028,920.00.. which is actually cheaper than £1,496,760 for an old 622Mbps Central that he will previously had to pay for many years.
By that I didnt mean you had to pay for both central and host link from the same location. I was just trying to use it as a guide for bandwidth costs.
-
That raises a question, your diagram shows a single physical connection reaching 20CN, 21CN and FTTC, which would appear to contradict the point about separate costs for 20CN. Is the 20CN stuff carried on a separate VLAN/VP/VRF or something, so logically a separate connection (with a separate price) even though it's on the same physical link?
Do you mean the IPSC diagram (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#IPSC)? The mention of FTTC threw me.
If so, it's aim is to show the possible pathways and that the links can connect to a single ISP gateway. Same as with WBMC shared, the ISP can have multiple host links if they wish. Gateway kit such as Junipers are able to merge various links or centrals. Plusnet used to connect different centrals to a single ERX.
---
Below is a BTw diagram showing routing over WBMC shared (the bottom cloud) for 21CN and IPSC also converging at one point. Don't ask me what the numbers mean I haven't a clue. What I did was clean it up, and then made a list below it to explain what all the abbreviations meant on this page (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/BTwholesale_network.htm)
PS.
When it shows 4 links to 'CP' it means the 4 methods of purchasing bandwidth 1) BT centrals, 2) WBC 3) WBMC Dedicated 4) WBMC Shared.
IPSC joins traffic at the EEA.
-
kitz dont want us two to go on forever, i accept due to lower economy of scale bt transit/backhaul may not be able to price match but not to the point of what they been charging
-
Apologies, my mistake and me seeing the lower cost for Market A from their pricing list and getting them mixed up, knowing that its supposedly unregulated that are cheaper.
I think BT may also be getting them mixed up too on their latest price list and transposed the figures... What the heck has happened to their pricing?
This is from the WBC Tarriff dated 1st Jan 2016
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00
Yet this is the latest WBC Tarriff dated 14th of April 2016
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
Have they messed with the Market A & B figures big time, or have they got them the wrong way round on the latest price guide.
I think they initially got those Market A and B figures the wrong way round, and recently fixed them in the latest price lists.
I pointed this out when discussing Plusnet non low-cost area pricing, in the older price lists, with Market 1,2,3, it was indeed Market 3 that was more expensive - that's probably because WBC coverage for Market B covers far more exchanges and end-users than Market A. Yes I still think Plusnet non low-cost pricing for FTTC and WBC is a total con trick.
IPSC does look much more expensive in Market B than Market A. But there's probably very little or no IPSC used in Market B anyway, most or all has WBC available, WBC is cheaper and doesn't have different per Mb per month bandwidth costs for Market A/B. A&A presumably could use TalkTalk wholesale in Market B instead of BTWholesale.