Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

by: Wireline Competition Bureau

October 1, 2012 - 07:28 PM

Please provide comments to the issue below as part of the 2012 WCB cost model virtual workshop for inclusion in the record. Comments are moderated for conformity to the workshop's guidelines.


The sharing factor represents the extent to which outside plant costs are shared among multiple providers, typically local exchange carriers, cable companies, and electric utilities.

Hybrid Cost Proxy Model: The HCPM assigns the following sharing factors to local exchange carriers:

  • Aerial Structure
    • Zones 1-6 (0<x<2550 lines per square mile): 50%
    • Zones 7-9 (>= 2550 lines per square mile): 35%
  • Underground and Buried Structure
    • Zones 1-2: 100%
    • Zone 3: 85%
    • Zones 4-6: 65%
    • Zones 7-9: 55%

CQBAT: The CQBAT model varies sharing factors not only by aerial, buried, and underground plant, but also among structure, feeder and distribution cabling, and middle mile. The model also provides different sharing factors in some instances for the rural, suburban, and urban categories:

Structure Sharing

Density% of cost attributed to studied carrier

Between Distribution and Feeder

Density% of common route that shares structure

Unique Inter-Office/Middle Mile

Density% of route that is dedicated structure

Questions for Comment

  1. Is there any reason to deviate from the CQBAT model's approach of breaking out structure inputs from cable inputs? Should the input values for each category be adopted without any modification?
  2. Should the Bureau assume three providers are sharing outside plant costs in any area where the SBI data set suggests there is a cable operator (i.e., the price cap carrier, electric company, and cable provider operate in that area)? Should this vary by aerial, buried, and underground plant? Note that areas with cable broadband are not eligible for support, but there will likely be cabling to unserved areas that passes through areas with cable facilities.
  3. What are the appropriate assumptions regarding sharing if the Bureau were to adopt a brown-field (DSL) model? Is it appropriate to assume that sharing will occur given that the model would assume that only limited network build-out occurs during a relatively short time horizon? Is it appropriate to assume that sharing with cable operators and electric companies would occur when a brown-field model would only assume build-out between the central office and a DSLAM? It may be that each of these differences will decrease the likelihood of sharing with cable or electric companies. Would it be appropriate to provide for sharing just for aerial cable?


Not seeing comment form in IE 8? Turn off IE compatibility mode to see comments.
Updated: October 19, 2012 - 01:29 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.