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 methodology Uses rules-of-thumb to determine feeder technology Organizes customer locations using map grids Uses rule-of-thumb distribution routing Incorporates SCIS output for switch costs Assumes 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 Model Uses engineering rules-of-thumb to direct feeder paths to areas of customer location Uses modified pinetree feeder routing technology (pinetree + “outlier” terminals) Optimizes feeder technology Organizes customer locations using nearest- neighbor cluster algorithm Uses rule-of-thumb distribution routing Simplified switch cost module Assumes 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 LECOM Uses pinetree feeder routing (no redirection of path) Optimizes feeder technology Organizes customer location using map grids Uses rule-of-thumb to determine distribution routing Optimizes switch number and locations Switch costs based on bottom-up design module Uses 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