Meeting Agenda List of Attendees
Access to Bandwidth: Proposals for action - Consultation Document (July 1999)
Jim Niblett (Oftel) welcomed everyone to the second Oftel Internet Forum (OIF) meeting and introduced himself as the project manager for Oftel's Access to Bandwidth initiative. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the Internet community of recent developments in the Access to Bandwidth initiative and to seek their opinions and concerns.
2. Access to Bandwidth - Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) - Click here to download the presentation (PPT) (194kb)
Ilsa's presentations explained the history to Oftel's Access to Bandwidth initiative and the rational behind the conclusions and decisions made. It also outlined the next steps, including key milestones, and requested information/views on how OLOs and ISPs are intending to use BT's unbundled local loop.
Comments
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) Raised the issues of social exclusion through pricing and stressed the need for other government areas to be involved.
Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) Stated that other government areas, i.e. DTI, are involved and the policy is to provide broadband access to as many people as possible, although at the present time is not included under the universal service obligation (USO). The priority at the moment is to launch broadband access and when it is available to a large percentage of the population maybe USO should be considered. Oftel is consulting on this issues and would welcome views on this subject. The consultation document can be found on the Oftel website - Universal Telecommunication Services.
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) Technical trade-offs need to be considered early, i.e. capacity/direction of data flow, before unbundled access is granted.
Dave Clarkson (Oftel) This has been identified by the NICC Task Group who's first milestone is to determine potential usage requirements such that the network capacity can be optimised. The NICC Group would welcome views on anticipated usage requirements from service providers who intend using this access scheme.
Adrian Carey (INS) ADSL technology would be used extensively in a DfEE proposed broadband WAN, however schools are likely to require symmetrical access. Issues like this must be addressed at the outset.
Mark Cook (UUNet) ADSL has been developed such that it does not interfere with existing telephony services and is thus surprised that Oftel considers line sharing to be such a problem. Any problems must be process rather than technical.
Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) Oftel's position reflects the responses to the original Access to Bandwidth consultation document (Dec 1998). It is true that the problems are process and accordingly the operators policy forum (OPF) Group will be tasked to address this issue.
Mark Cook (UUNet) General observation, option 4 without option 2 would give BT a monopoly, this point has not been identified explicitly in any of Oftel's consultation documents.
Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) Other broadband access schemes do exist, i.e. cable modems and wireless.
Mark Cook (UUNet) The ubiquity of BT's local loop would still give them an effective monopoly.
Mark Atkinson (Intel) Have any studies, regarding the number of BT exchanges that can support co-location, been conducted? Will there be sufficient business for OLOs to provide global coverage or only urban coverage?
Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) Oftel has instigated independent studies and is expecting these to be completed soon.
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) How should Oftel stimulate roll-out of market?
Ilsa Godlovitch (Oftel) Market forces should be given the opportunity to develop the market.
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) In the US, DSL.Lite is widely available. Can the UK afford to delay? There should be a national policy to minimise any delays as a 6 to 12 month delay could have long term implications.
3. BT Update on ADSL Products - Richard Cameron (BT)
Richard gave a general overview of BT's new broadband products and introduced two of his colleagues who would give a more detailed presentation on the IP Bit Stream and Data Stream Products. Pricing and terms and conditions for these products will be posted on BT's web site as Suppliers Information Notes (SINs) and Service Providers Industry Notifications (SPINs). Go to BT's [SIN List] [SPIN List]
Product |
SIN Number | SPIN Number |
| IP Bit Stream | 329 | 012 |
| Data Stream | 306 | 013 |
IP Bit Stream - James Appleton (BT) - Click here to download the presentation (PPT) (3,376kb)
James gave an overview of BT's IP Bit Stream product and suggested that it was similar to Oftel's option 4.
Data Stream - Andrew Careson (BT)
Andrew gave an overview of BT's Data Stream product. This product allows SP/OLOs a certain amount of flexibility to configure the network so that they can create their own service.
Comments
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) Asked why the Network Address Translation (NAT) had been set-up the way it has and suggested that this approach may prevent customers using certain applications.
James Appleton (BT) NAT is used as it allows BT to offer customers access to a choice of Internet Service Providers. Service Providers can provide their own addressing if they wish.
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) Pointed out that although BT is offering a range of down stream data rates, only one up stream rate is offered - Why is this?
Andrew Careson (BT) The up stream rate is limited by the ADSL technology and after several studies the rate offered was considered to be acceptable for typical usage.
4.1 NICC DSL Task Group - Fred Howett (Nortel) - Click here to download the presentation (PPT) (123kb)
The NICC DSL Task Group was established in April 1998 and tasked to consider DSL.Lite as CPE in the UK, and possible DSL interference issues. The group published reports on these two subjects in Sept 1998 and in March 1999 submitted a response to Oftel's Access to Bandwidth consultation document. These reports are available on the NICC public area. The group has been asked to reconvene to develop a spectral management plan and an associated set of rules relating to the characteristics and usage of the unbundled loop. The terms of reference for these new tasks were agreed in Aug 1999, including timescales. Ongoing issues include the imminent introduction of the R&TTE Directive and EMC. The Radiocommunications Agency has released a draft SI, for comment, suggesting radiation limits and measurement standard [MPT 1570].
Comments
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) Will the group use experience gain by the US in it's ADSL roll out?
Fred Howett (Nortel) Under the terms of reference the group is obliged to consider any existing experience, although it is understood that the US are starting to experience problems and now wish they had developed better deployment rules.
Caspar Bowden (FIPR) There will be a number of options for filling the access network with high bit rate data services. Will the group seek consultation on these options?
Dave Clarkson (Oftel) Oftel's goal is to deliver broadband access to as many consumers as possible and would favour a high volume, medium data rate service over a low volume, high data rate service.
Jim Niblett (Oftel) Consultation will be sought if more than one realistic option is identified by the group.
Mark Cook (UUNet) When determining the deployment rules, what scenario is considered, worst case? and has any testing been conducted to determine typical characteristics for the local loops?
Fred Howett (Nortel) Taking the absolute worst case would probably be to restrictive, instead considering a majority proportion (say 95%) may be a more sensible approach. Recently BT has performed a number of measurements on a selection of local loops, the sample size was relatively small. This data has been included in the NICC reports.
Mark Cook (UUNet) Why does the NICC Task Group require a year to produce a spectral management plan before OLOs can even begin to consider connecting to the local loops, when BT must have already solved the problem, at least for ADSL? Could we not open the loops to ADSL now and then consider other technology mixes later?
A discussion took place about this issue and it was asked why anyone would want to produce an identical service to BT. It was pointed out that this would produce competition to BT. Another point raised was that even if a spectral management plan was not required the processes would still be required and these activities are scheduled to run in parallel, thus there is unlikely to be any time benefit. Oftel will consider this point further and report it conclusions in the Access to Bandwidth statement, which is scheduled for end October 1999.
4.2 OPF LLU Focus Group - Greg Mook (MCI Worldcom) - Click here to download the presentation (PPT) (270kb)
Greg Mook is the chairman of the recently established OPF LLU Focus Group, the first meeting of with will be on 10th Sept 1999. Although the terms of reference for this group will be agreed at the coming meeting Greg gave an overview of the work that he considered to be required.
Comments
No questions
The meeting was opened up to AOB.
Mark Cook (UUNet) Suggested that BT may not be committed to meeting the deadlines set out by Oftel and asked if BT's service provider will be treated the same as others.
Jim Niblett (Oftel) The deadlines set out by Oftel have in principle been agreed by BT and these are now what Oftel is working to. BT's service provider will definitely be treated the same as all other service providers.
