New network card Swisscom - landline network

---

@5018 wrote:

@Roger G I think your map update wasn’t that optimal. The correct information that was there before is now gone. In return you get a mix of meaningless and sometimes incorrect information. What did you do there?

---

I have no idea, not my construction site 😁 There are still old copper connections in my community, but they are attached to a PUS and a CO. This is because we have two districts that belong together politically, but are separated by 1km. Then it will be output incorrectly for one part in the granularity of the card.

If you could give examples that are not correct (but: there were replannings/changes in the expansion), then I would be happy to pass them on.

There is a slightly more optimized map here: https://ftth.init7.net There you can also see what “partially expanded” really means. one can count the properties that have been effectively developed.

@5018 I didn’t see your other post. Init7’s map now has at least a search function. Here you can actually find all the locations that Swisscom is allowed to market. Areas where the feeder cleanup or The conversion to P2P needs to be done are not displayed.

In my opinion, the Swisscom card is faulty. There, towns like Pfaffnau or Schötz say “Fiber optics built, not in operation”. This cannot be true, because the checker says nothing about a postponed expansion or reference to the BGVER ruling. Both municipalities are also in the PRIORIS Verbund AG. PRIORIS Projekt AG (https://www.prioris.ch) and would like to expand a fiber optic network ourselves with an investor from Austria (BG Communication or Regionale Glasfaser Schweiz AG). Either the data in the card is incorrect or Swisscom wants to get ahead of PRIORIS with the expansion, as was already the case in Willisau.

---

@5018 wrote:

Yes, the Swisscom card is useless. And in principle, Swisscom will build everywhere. Either in cooperation or alone. If someone also wants to build a network, then here you go. There are many examples where things don’t end well for the “other” and you still enter into cooperation. I am not aware of any case in which a cooperation with Swisscom failed (unless the demands on the cooperation were unacceptable).

---

I have already warned those responsible: either cooperate with Swisscom or leave it alone. Basically, the interest group is concerned with the complete development of all properties in a community and not just those in the core or construction zone. Swisscom will build networks very hard without cooperation, just the lucrative ones in the construction zone, but the complete amortization will then be quite difficult for the investor. Each of Swisscom’s competitors then has the choice between the municipality’s network or Swisscom’s fiber. At Swisscom he can simply order wholesale products via BBCS. If it’s worth it, you can also place your own equipment in the headquarters. It won’t be worth it for him to rent extra space from the municipality’s network or from PRIORIS.

By “overbuilding” third-party networks and at the same time strictly refusing to rent fiber optics from third parties, Swisscom is working very actively to “flatten” the infrastructure competition originally intended by politicians for the nationwide FTTH expansion in Switzerland.

What may not have been strategically reflected enough in Swisscom management’s thinking:

Every “overbuilding” with parallel FTTH networks, which is completely nonsensical in terms of national supply, also provides politicians with further arguments that the original idea of ​​infrastructure competition between different network builders has definitely failed.

This will give further impetus to the idea of ​​separating Swisscom into a pure service provider and separating it into a pure operator of the physical network infrastructure under state control.

But is Swisscom management really aiming for this in the long term?

Infrastructure competition is politically desired in Switzerland. In recent years, there has been a conscious decision not to regulate fiber optic networks in order not to “jeopardize” their expansion. Such a double expansion is worthwhile for Swisscom because Swisscom has the largest market share and many competitors offer their services via Swisscom BBCS. This means that the majority of customers are automatically with Swisscom. In addition, make your own network independent, otherwise you will have a patchwork of your own and third-party networks, whose rents and usage fees you can also negotiate regularly with the local “fiber optic princes”. Given Swisscom’s size and market power, the “cooperation or superstructure” model definitely makes sense. Even the Telecommunications Act (Article 35b) regulates that a competitor can use the infrastructure in the building (BEP, climbing zone, OTO -Can) can be used for compensation. It should also be noted that not all fiber optic networks are “open access”. Often there is Quickline and perhaps a second provider for an alibi of freedom of choice and the local cable network leader doesn’t allow anything more. A superstructure is also good for such network operators. We already have monopolies and forced consumption when it comes to electricity.

---

@Roger G At my house, the joint expansion with ENIWA was shown very well on the old map. Now there is nothing left about this, but there are reports of partial expansions with fiber, which I don’t think anyone has ever seen 😉Take a look at communities 5015 and 5018.

---

You have an FTTB (G3) installed, which is why a fiber cable is already in one building. So you still need to add the feeder and drop and then distribute it to the houses. There is no need for a KoPa. I don’t see anything from ENIWA either.

And yes, for 5018 the information on the card is correct, for 5015 - which has the identical configuration - it is not correct. The same for me, as actually 80% have had their fibers dangling for >2 years. The information is currently correct, but we have specific data for May 24 in the checker. You should see this on the map.