the decision won't affect our dry loop rates.
That sound pretty unequivocal so what did you read in the decision that makes you think otherwise?In light of the above, the Commission approves on a final basis the revised monthly recurring rates for Type A unbundled loops set out in Appendix 1 to this decision and the revised service charge rates for Type A and Type B unbundled local loops set out in Appendix 2.
I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I can't see what else this is referring to other than dry-loop rates for residential and business DSL. Why else would there be so many points about copper pairs between the CO and customers, and discussions about DSL service charges. For example:According to others re: this ruling, the experts are saying that unbundling rates /= dry loop rates
andThe Bell companies’ proposed time estimate increases compared to the 2001 cost studies were primarily due to the more complex jumper wire work associated with orders for customers subscribed to both voice and DSL services. Jumper wire work for voice-only service is less complex.
I'm not making any specific points about these 2 quote, other than to illustrate that I believe that this decision does indeed refer to residential dry-loop DSL.For ILEC orders, for the network interface device (NID) work activity, use same rate for residence and business loop orders, based on SME estimate.
I interpret this to mean that if you want Teksavvy or Primus in your area and there's not room on the existing hardware, you're SOL.32. The Commission notes that under the NBV costing approach, the unbundled loop rates are not set to recover costs associated with purchasing additional copper cables to meet new CLEC demand. Consistent with this approach, the Commission considers that it is appropriate not to require the Bell companies to provide unbundled loops to CLECs if to do so would require them to purchase additional copper cables to meet the CLECs’ requests for such loops.
And looking up ISDN on Wikipedia, it looks like this is a very specialized technology that likely has very little actual use in Canada today. A Type B unbundled loop is a transmission path that supports the transmission of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Base Rate Interface (BRI)-type signals between a customer’s premises and a CO.
So it looks to me like only a very specific group of customers would be using this service, and it's not the same as DSL.ISDN-BRI has never gained popularity as a general use telephone access technology in Canada and the US and today remains a niche product. The service was seen as a solution in search of a problem, and the extensive array of options and features were difficult for most customers to understand and utilize. ISDN has long been known by several derogatory acronyms highlighting these issues, such as It Still Does Nothing, Innovations Subscribers Don't Need, and I Still Don't kNow.
Once the concept of broadband Internet access came to be associated with data rates incoming to the customer at 256 kbit/s or more, and alternatives like ADSL grew in popularity, the consumer market for BRI imploded.
ISDN-BRI is currently primarily used in industries with specialized and very specific needs. High-end videoconferencing made by companies such as Sony, Polycom, Tandberg, and LifeSize via the LifeSize Networker bond up to 8 B-channels together (using a BRI circuit for every 2 channels) to provide digital, circuit-switched video connections to almost anywhere in the world.
Actually, I have set up systems over ISDN many times. I've used them with PBX extenders that allow digital phones, such as Nortel or Avaya, to be at locations remote from the PBX. The systems I've set up can support up to 24 extensions, though only 10 can be on a call at any given time (using G.729), if connected via ISDN. The full 24 can be supported when connected via fractional T1 or IP.it looks like this is a very specialized technology that likely has very little actual use in Canada today.
This obviously plays into Bell's hands. They can simply underbuild and say "sorry no lines available." Then, when the customer turns to Bell, a line will suddenly become available. I wonder what checks and balances the CRTC plans to install in order to prevent fraud on the part of Bell.the Commission considers that it is appropriate not to require the Bell companies to provide unbundled loops to CLECs if to do so would require them to purchase additional copper cables to meet the CLECs’ requests for such loops.