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.
Background
Hybrid Cost Proxy Model: The HCPM builds loop plant directly to customer locations via individual micro-grids. At the time the HCPM platform was adopted, micro-grids were hundreds of feet across. This approach allowed for an error of up to a few hundred feet in determining customer locations. The model defines customer "lots" within each micro-grid based on the customer population. The model allows for spanning-tree optimization of routes, although this is recommended only in sparsely populated locations. The feeder network is built on explicit spanning-tree algorithms, with user-defined inputs to select various approaches (e.g., airline v. rectilinear distance, allow artificial junction nodes).
CQBAT: The CQBAT model builds loop plant along road segments. It utilizes a spanning tree algorithm in order to find the optimal route (i.e., the lowest cost route) to serve all customer locations along road paths—a minimum spanning road tree.
Questions for Comment
- The CQBAT model appears to use a reasonable approach for estimating the plant necessary to serve customer locations. Is there any reason to deviate from this approach? Are there any changes that should be made to this approach?
- What additional information, if any, regarding the routing algorithm and outputs is necessary to understand the model's approach?
Sources
- Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-160, Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21323, 21346, paras. 50, 56, n.106 (1998) (Platform Order)
- C.A. Bush, ET AL., Federal Communications Commission and Panum Telecom, LLC, Computer Modeling of the Local Telephone Network (1999), https://transition.fcc.gov/ccb/apd/hcpm/ (via HCPM_doc.zip) (HCPM Report)