1

Other bottom-up models BCPM HAI Model LECOM

2

BCPM

Uses engineering rules-of-thumb to direct feeder paths to areas of customer location

Uses pinetree feeder routing methodologyUses rules-of-thumb to determine feeder technologyOrganizes customer locations using map gridsUses rule-of-thumb distribution routingIncorporates SCIS output for switch costsAssumes SONET technology for interoffice

3

Why not BCPM? Rules of thumb do not capture economic

tradeoffs necessary to calculate economic cost

Customer location approach leads to biased estimates of loop lengths

SCIS switching model has never been transparent

4

HAI ModelUses engineering rules-of-thumb to direct feeder paths to areas of customer location

Uses modified pinetree feeder routing technology (pinetree + “outlier” terminals)

Optimizes feeder technologyOrganizes customer locations using nearest-neighbor

cluster algorithmUses rule-of-thumb distribution routingSimplified switch cost moduleAssumes SONET technology for interoffice

5

Why not HAI? Although fewer rules of thumb than

BCPM, they are still employed (instead of real economic decision modeling)

Customer location approach, although it involves the use of clustering, leads to biased estimates of distribution loop lengths

6

LECOMUses pinetree feeder routing (no redirection of

path)Optimizes feeder technologyOrganizes customer location using map gridsUses rule-of-thumb to determine distribution

routingOptimizes switch number and locationsSwitch costs based on bottom-up design moduleUses rule-of-thumb interoffice module

7

Why not LECOM? Customer location modeling inadequate Pinetree feeder is not optimal Best idea: Integrate LECOM optimization

features into HCPM