Posted 03/15/2001
Front Page
MESHING OSS:
NEW SOLUTIONS PROVIDE MEANS TO INTEGRATE MULTIPLE SYSTEMS
By Chris Garifo
Internet service providers reselling DSL access to their growing subscriber bases are learning the importance of having an electronic interconnection with their DSL wholesalers.
While the modus operandi for many ISPs to date has been to simply send DSL requests to the appropriate data local exchange carrier (DLEC), larger ISPs with mushrooming subscriber bases are finding that having an electronic interface with their DLEC can mean the difference between success or failure. Electronic bonding means faster provisioning, fewer lost or incorrect orders and cost-saving efficiencies, compared to the exchange of faxes that previously were used to send orders.
However, a lack of industry standards for e-bonding between ISPs and DLECs still presents a barrier to flow-through provisioning. The DSL Forum (www.dslforum.org) has been working to address this issue.
In its December meeting in Portland, DSL Forum resolved all the straw-ballot issues on flow-through provisioning from ISP to DLEC to ILEC. DSL Forum, which has been working with groups such as the Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF), expects to issue a DSL Forum Technical Report (TR) this month, in time for the DSL Forum's meeting in Vancouver, Canada.
While standards between the ISPs and the DLECs have yet to be formally established, standards for a CLEC or DLEC to order a local loop from an ILEC have been in place for some time. As a result, companies such as DSET Corp. (www.dset.com) and NightFire Software Inc. (www.nightfire.com) have introduced products to establish electronic gateways between the ILECs and DLECs/ CLECs. When standards are established between the ISPs and the DLECs, similar gateway products likely will be developed. Until then, however, the ISPs and DLECs will have to make do with other forms of interconnection.
Larger ISPs Feeling Pinch
Once those standards are finalized, independent software vendors (ISVs) may be more willing to begin developing gateway products that will further automate the DSL ordering and provisioning process. Until then, however, the ISPs are relying on more traditional methods of order entry and tracking or non- standards-based methods of electronically interfacing with service suppliers.
Covad Communications Co. (www.covad.com), a major DSL provider, has established an extensible markup language (XML) interface through which ISPs can order their services, says Umesh Bellur, Covad's director of software engineering, adding that most of its ISP customers are taking advantage of the technology. "All of the top ISPs have recognized [the need] and have kind of devoted considerable time and effort to bond electronically with DSL providers," Bellur says.
The electronic interface offers two benefits, Bellur says. It reduces the costs to both the ISP and the DLEC because they no longer have to rely on manual operations to transfer data from one place to another; and it helps them automate some of their internal operations, such as DSL qualifications.
"It's a matter of cost reduction and efficiency," Bellur says. "The numbers are very compelling and most of the top ISPs have seen that and have adapted to that."
For the major ISPs, such as EarthLink Inc. (www.earthlink.net), that handle huge volumes, "absolutely there's no question about it, they have to be automated," Bellur says. "They spend a lot of money on their own internal automation, as well as on electronic bonding and suppliers."
E-bonding is more of an advantage to the ISPs, but the DLECs also benefit, Bellur admits, because it helps the DLECs avoid dealing with the errors that plague manual operations.
In the Covad example, all data between the service providers travels over a secure Internet connection. Covad specifies all the XML documentation definition templates (DDTs), which denotes what data is sent. Covad has shared those templates with DSL Forum.
Despite the success Covad has enjoyed with interconnections to its ISP partners, "the process of doing the interconnection [with other DSL providers] is not as smooth as people would like to think it is," says Dave Deutschman, CTO for Quintessent Communications Inc. (www.quintessent.net).
ISP technicians, who are experts in running servers and routers, might not have much background in more telecom-oriented issues like flow-through provisioning.
"The main challenge that we've learned is that, from a DSL provider's standpoint, it's not just about the point software that ISPs can use to actually send you orders or do service-availability requests," says Venkates Swaminathan, founder, executive vice president and chief strategist of NightFire Software. "It's about having the expertise in services like change management, the ability to actually manage changes via a communications link in an effective way."
XML-based systems that some DLECs have established for ISPs to use lack fully detailed or fully documented business rules for the orders, which drastically reduces the chances of orders coming through without effort. On top of that, DSL providers were often at the mercy of the ILECs, who could, and usually did, make changes in how the information essential for line provisioning had to be formatted. Those changes are a major reason why the ISPs were often forced to build custom software to interconnect with the DLECs.
Economy of Scale
As if the whole flow-through provisioning problem weren't complex enough, DSL providers might not even consider it worthwhile to offer electronic interconnection to smaller ISPs. The headaches that could result from those few service orders likely would make them not worth the expense and effort.
"It's a function of the size of the ISP as to the extent that they need to either pay the data LEC for the interface, or that the data LEC is willing to provide that to the ISP at their own cost," says Paul Smith, senior vice president of strategic planning and product management for DSET.
Overall, the DSL market is continuing to grow, but the majority of the business is being captured now by the ILECs, Smith says. That means the DLECs are seeing their market position weaken, and they could be in a precarious position. As a result, many DLECs are thinking twice about investing in interconnections with ISPs, especially in a market in which ISPs are failing to pay their bills and the DLECs themselves are at risk.
"Do you want to invest more in companies that might not make it?" Smith asks. "So, what you tend to do is do as much manually as you can, or with the least investment that you can, rather than risk more investment capital."
