There’s the whole story.. Init7? Never heard of it, will never be considered by me!
[https://www.digitec.ch/de/page/swisscom-verliert-vor-bundesgericht-im-glasfarbenstreit-22118](https://www.digitec.ch/de/page/swisscom-verliert-vor- federal court-in-the-fiber-optic-dispute-22118)
Read today that Swisscom is advertising its p2mp network with “Energy Saving”. But it is proprietary!
For customers, this means that the fiber optic connection from the central office must be shared with other residents of the property. This means: not full bandwidth available.
Speaking in plain language it means: Swisscom wants to save costs, “saving energy” is only superficial!
P2P: one transmitter at the start and end of each fiber optic
p2mp: one transmitter and one passive switch per fiber optic at the beginning
It follows from this: fewer fiber optics are sent from the control center and fewer transmitters are needed.
Conversion to P2P for Swisscom would mean more transmitters in the headquarters and more fiber optics from the headquarters.
What was it like on the phone?
One line per household from the control center to the telephone in the apartment.
@diJis You’re just reading too much nonsense. P2MP is the world’s dominant technology that is used virtually everywhere. The bandwidth available is so large that no one notices whether something is shared or not. By the way, from the headquarters onwards everything is shared again and at the next node again and again and again and again.
With XGS-PON, up to 8000 MBit/s are available. For surfing you need 2-5 MBit/s and UHD TV needs between 25 and 40 MBit/s.
Now get out the calculator…
Oh yes: around 80-90% of all problems arise in the home network. With DSL, more so, as there is also the source of error between the house entrance and the router, for which the customer is responsible.
The biggest sources of error are:
incorrect setup of the router,
incorrect wiring,
Equipment from the IT supermarket,
old devices or devices with known problems (HP printer via WLAN),
Missing updates for devices (computer, TV, etc.)
and much more.
The fact that a technology is dominant worldwide does not automatically mean that it is the best. There are enough examples 😉
P2MP is cheaper to expand and would achieve the goal of building glass across the board more quickly. But that is probably the only reason why this way of building networks is dominant.
@diJis anyway: even without P2MP, there isn’t a single glass connection in private households that you don’t share with others. Or do you really believe that a control center is accessible with “10Gbit × number of connections”?
@kaetho Yes, P2MP has the best price/performance ratio and still unlimited potential. Why buy a Porsche if you’re just going to drive back and forth between your home and the bakery anyway? If we only ever took “the best”, then we would waste resources endlessly and only a small minority could even afford it.
@5018 wrote:
@kaetho Yes, P2MP has the best price/performance ratio and still unlimited potential. Why buy a Porsche if you’re just going to drive back and forth between your home and the bakery anyway? If you only ever took “the best”, then we would waste resources endlessly and only a small minority could even afford it.
I think the arguments are a bit frayed.
🫤
The reasons for the lawsuit have already been discussed extensively in this thread/forum. (Here for example.) The example from @Werner in above article and the addendum regarding I can understand Zürinet very well. What does your Porsche example have to do with building enough reserve fibers for the next 100 years? To enable a competitive market from a monopoly situation? So that everyone can afford modern and fast internet.
In my opinion, the goal is also to provide Switzerland as a workplace with a competitive fiber optic network. Enabling remote workstations with enough bandwidth and thus avoiding millions of commuter kilometers is, on the contrary, resource-saving. The data-intensive applications already exist today and new ones will appear as soon as the capacity is there at a decent price.
And if it is now argued that this progress is only possible with PTMP, it is also far-fetched. The large cities and agglomerations are already developed competitively. Then we can do this in the peripheral regions as soon as possible. Equal and, if necessary, cross-subsidized. Like back then with PTT, where everyone got a phone at a decent price. Also in the SAC Hut. If necessary, you just need a few years without profit but with maximum investments. We will cope with that, and we would already be there today if the “Green Table” agreements had been adhered to. That was 10 years ago and if it suddenly goes on for 10 years longer, I understand the behavior of the former monopolist even less.
😉
Äs Greetings
Android
👽
@5018 wrote:
[…] I saved the rest of your post. Everyone can write what they want, but everyone can also read what they want…
Thanks for your contribution. What would you like to tell us? Customers helping customers? Your help is limited to discrediting other people’s posts without arguments. If you don’t have anything substantive to contribute, you can skip the above two sentences entirely. They don’t reflect what I understand by respectful treatment. I have no idea who gives SuperUser rights to whom, but I would revoke them immediately.
@5018 wrote:
@kaetho Yes, P2MP has the best price/performance ratio and still unlimited potential. Why buy a Porsche if you’re just going to drive back and forth between your home and the bakery anyway? If we only ever took “the best”, then we would waste resources endlessly and only a small minority could even afford it.
This is not about price/performance ratio, but rather about market abuse. Monopoly position in the infrastructure or hardware-related area. In this respect, the ComCo will soon comment on this. Make a decision in favor of the (infra) competition and ultimately the customer! Regardless of whether you have to wait longer for the fiber or receive an FTTH Anschluss more quickly. 😉
@diJis wrote:
Read today that Swisscom is advertising its p2mp network with “energy saving”. But it is proprietary!
For customers, this means that the fiber optic connection from the central office must be shared with other residents of the property. This means: not full bandwidth available.
Speaking in plain language it means: Swisscom wants to save costs, “saving energy” is only superficial!
P2P: one transmitter at the start and end of each fiber optic
p2mp: one transmitter and one passive switch per fiber optic at the beginning
This means: fewer fiber optics are sent from the control center and fewer transmitters are needed.
Conversion to P2P for Swisscom would mean more transmitters in the headquarters and more fiber optics from the headquarters.
How was the telephone?
One line per household from the control center to the telephone in the apartment.
No, there’s a lot of nonsense in there. Many people (still) confuse technology and construction. P2P and P2MP are construction methods. With P2MP, the optical splitter is somewhere between the control center and the riser to the customer, it can be in the street or in the basement. The individual fiber optic cable to the central office is then shared via technology, i.e. xgsPON. But sharing is relative because you get an assigned time slot. Simplified: Imagine a highway with 1 lane where 64 cars drive behind each other at the same speed. You have place number 2, the 10 behind you may be free and then the next one comes. But everyone drives the same speed, whether you use the highway alone or together.
And of course other ISPs also use PON technology on P2P. Using one laser port per customer is simply too expensive, which is why the splitter is simply installed in the headquarters and patched from there to the customers on 64 fibers (or however many they split). You split a fiber in exactly the same way, you just ask yourself where the optical splitter is now.
It is therefore completely wrong that with P2P there is always one optical transmitter per fiber in the control center. When Swisscom currently builds new P2P systems, they are built in such a way that 1 or 2 fibers per usage unit are routed to the headquarters. There the fibers are routed to a patch panel (OMDF), and then to the respective provider’s equipment. This can be a single port (too expensive for a certain number of customers) or one of the outputs of an optical splitter. So it can be identical to P2MP, only the splitter is in a different location and you have to install an (expensive) optical patch panel for 1-2 fibers per NE in between.
Roger G.
Swisscom (Schweiz) AG, Product Manager Wireline Access
Thanks for the detailed explanation @Roger G
So does this mean that the ISP would rather place its equipment in the headquarters and not in the street or in the basement?
Yes, because it’s nice and cool and has electricity. And since they don’t build things themselves, they won’t want to put their equipment on the street or even in the houses. That’s why the freely accessible fiber was required from the customer to the headquarters so that they could reach as many usage units as possible from there. This was also done with copper.
Roger G.
Swisscom (Schweiz) AG, Product Manager Wireline Access
Swisscom is probably right about M2MP.
I read the whole argument (!).
[https://www.swisscom.ch/de/about/news/2021/11/04-eigentor-im-netzausbau.html#ms-multipageStep-newsletter](https://www.swisscom.ch/de/ about/news/2021/11/04-eigentor-im-netzausbau.html#ms-multipageStep-newsletter)
At Init7 I was also on the map (only centers and larger city-like towns). But not for the peripheral regions (I live in the peripheral region of the canton of Zurich, there are many more peripheral regions throughout Switzerland).
I agree with Swisscom. No commercial competitor is active in the peripheral region.
Did the ComCo only look at centers with huge agglomerations and forget the many peripheral regions?
However, the law so far clearly says something different on this topic.
Instead of the Swisscom bulletins, you might be better off reading the Comco reports and the previous rulings of the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Court on this topic.
Incidentally, violations of competition law and exploitation of a dominant market position are nothing new for Swisscom; they have happened several times in the last 15 years and have already cost Swisscom a total of over CHF 250 million in fines.
By the way, if anyone is wondering why the majority owner of Swisscom is not more careful to ensure that Verwaltungsrat and the group management of Swisscom AG do not finally develop a better preventive legal awareness after the repeated violations of competition law.
A bad and certainly unfounded rumor goes:
“The Confederation must always hand over 49% of the annual dividends to the private co-owners, but it can keep 100% of the fines directly for the federal treasury.”
Hobby-Nerd ohne wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeiten zur Swisscom
@diJis wrote:
Did the ComCo only look at centers with huge agglomerations and forget the many peripheral regions?
The judgment from the Federal Administrative Court contains detailed reasons for this from RZ 487
[https://jurispub.admin.ch/publiws/download?decisionId=ef109888-721e-444e-b855-62d93ed48586] (https://jurispub.admin.ch/publiws/download?decisionId=ef109888-721e-444e-b855-62d93ed48586)
Swisscom itself described these additional costs for the four-fiber model as marginal (RZ 483)
