Tag: next-generatin broadband

Article – French language

Le nombre d’abonnés FTTH a augmenté de 71 % en un an – DegroupNews.com (France)

My comments

After I had reviewed this article about the apparent increase in fibre-to-the-home next-generation Internet subscribers, I had noticed a few key facts.

The areas where there was the FTTH activity taking place were France’s major cities, but where there has been local initiative taking place concerning real-broadband or next-generation Internet, there has been the activity.

A good question to ask is whether there is immediate takeup of FTTH next-generation Internet as soon as customers know that the service is passing their door? For the apartment buildings and other multi-tenancy buildings, there may be issues concerning the rollout within the buildings as agreements are struck with landlords and building-management associations (body corporates).

I would also find that the competitive-service measures such as “multifibre” (each provider maintaining fibre infrastructure to the customer” and “monofibre” (infrastructure shared by multiple providers) allows more customers to choose value for money for their triple-play Internet needs.

There is a common requirement to improve Internet access in many communities. This may be in the form of extending high-speed broadband out to rural areas or implementing next-generation broadband service around a nation or state. It may also include providing a community of financially-disadvantaged users, such as residents of a public housing estate with computer hardware, Internet access and training.

In most of these improvements, there is the involvement of government in facilitating the rollouts and the funds are derived from the money pools that the government has access to courtesy of the taxes that it raises.

Examples of the projects typically range from a local council implementing a Wi-Fi hotzone in its towns or a regional government funding a fibre-optic rollout in its area of responsibility to a national government subsidising Internet rollout projects across the country.

I have covered instances where action concerning Internet-accessibility improvement has been assisted with public money of some sort, such as improvements in Gironde and Vaucluse in France; and many other rural-broadband improvements in the UK.

Here, the question that is often raised is whether such operations should be funded by this public money and assisted by these government entities. This is typically raised by conservative organisations who prefer that little public money be spent on this kind of service delivery and would prefer that this is the responsibility of a private free market.

The free-market argument

The free-market argument underscores the fact that the public money is the “property of the taxpayer” and that government shouldn’t waste their money on these Internet-improvement projects. Instead they would rather that market forces determine the kind of Internet service that is provided.

Similarly the free-market no-public-money argument also underscores a rationale that the money to assist Internet deployment in underserved areas could be better spent on other services like health or road / rail infrastructure. There is also the fear that taxes will be increased in the area so as to cover the Internet-deployment project.

Limitations

This may be OK if there is a vibrant competitive Internet-service market in every part of the country. But where there is a monopoly or cartel managing the Internet service for an area, there can be problems with a totally free-market approach.

For example, it is easier to fail to serve communities based on perceived lack of short-term profitability. This can be aided by various personal prejudices like fear of serving neighbourhoods dominated by minorities. With this, there is less of a likelihood of catering to a changing customer mix in a community. This is more so if the change involves establishing infrastructure in a community where there could be new perceived demand, such as a neighbourhood that has been gentrified or has acquired a new employer.

Infact some of the incumbent monopoly operators in the US have been known to cry foul and organise PR and legal campaigns against municipal hotzone efforts. This is because they fear that the Internet service offered by the hotzone is to provide a competing service and undermine their monopoly over their operating area.

Why use public money

The use of public money to provide proper Internet service to underserved communities is effectively a “leg-up” for private Internet providers to provide the service to these communities.  This is especially where they wouldn’t find this kind of operation profitable especially in the short-term.

Common public-money sources for Internet-service provision

Local government

I also find that the local government is in a better position to underpin local projects because they know what the local needs are. They are infact more representative of the local community and are dependent on a primary income base – the council rates or taxes — that is sensitive to local area value. Here a high-quality Internet service can attract a high-value employer which will raise the area’s effective value and income base.

Universal-service funds

Another public money source that is relevant to Internet-service improvement are universal-service funds. These are funds that are provided to communications companies and utilities to offset the cost of difficult service rollouts in order to provide a baseline level of service to all communities.

These funds may be resourced from a standard levy charged to all customers for the provision of their service, another tax base like the TV licence fee in the UK or a line of spending in a government’s budget. But these service funds would be specifically allocated for providing the communications service to the community. They are typically underscored by laws that define a minimum standard for Internet service through the nation in a similar manner to what is implemented for the telephone.

But there are other sources such as baseline federal assistance for communications and technology enrichment projects as well as international funding from multi-nation groups like the European Commission.

Public-Private Partnerships

The projects would be typically rolled out in a public-private partnership where the telco or ISP finance some of the project’s costs while the public funds finance the rest of the project’s costs.

They are exemplified through entities who represent the government and the private operatiors and are responsible for managing the project and tendering out the work that is necessary for it to go ahead. What is important about them is that the projects are subject to value-for-money tests yet have exposure to the benefits of free-market competition and the public money goes a long way towards the project with less drain on the public budget.

Conclusion

What i value is that public money can be used to assist in improving Internet access for disadvantaged communities or establishing a newer Internet technology with minimal private risk.

Article

Telstra split ‘won’t fix monopoly’ as rivals fear reform will fail | The Australian

My comments

A lively competitive market

When I think of a competitive broadband infrastructure, it needs to be lively and competitive with many different wholesale and retail Internet service providers. Here, I would rather see the competition occur more on value than on who offers the cheapest service.

What can happen if the competitive market focuses on who offers the cheapest service is that companies can cut corners to achieve this goal. This can lead to situations that are consumer-hostile like poor customer service, rigidly-enforced terms of service that don’t allow scope for human variation and budget-tier services that don’t offer what customers need.

The proposed Telstra split

This proposed wholesale-retail breakup of Telstra could sound very much like what is happening with British Telecom in the UK. At the moment, BT are running a retail arm as well as a wholesale-infrastructure arm called Openreach.

In the case of the Telstra split, the infrastructure would be managed by a monopoly which is the National Broadband Network while there is a “wholesale” group and a “retail” group. There will be issues like preferential tariff sheets for the Telstra service as well as something yet undiscussed.

Telstra as the baseline telecommunications provider

This is the provision of the baseline telephone and Internet service. It encompasses the maintenance of public payphones; the definition and provision of the standard telephone line; the provision of the national emergency telephone services, as well as communications needs for the social sector. It can also include covering for communications through natural and other disasters. At the moment, Telstra’s discretionary mobile and Internet services prop up their role as this baseline telephony provider.

What I would also like to see is an improvement in how the baseline telecommunications service is provided and funded for. This could involve the use of tenders to determine the provision of parts of the baseline telecommunication service as well as the creation and management of universal-service funds that subsidise the provision of these services. This avoids the need for a service provider to jack up the price of discretionary services to cover the costs associated with the baseline services.

Wireline infrastructure competition

One driver for real competition is the ability to supply competing wireline infrastructure. This typically comes in the form of sub-loop unbundling where an ADSL service can be provided through the use of equipment installed between the customer’s door and the exchange and the customer’s line connected to that equipment. In an FTTH fibre-optic setup, this would be in the form of extra fibre-optic lines controlled by competing interests run to the customer’s door; a practice that is taking place in France.

For that matter, it may be worth examining what is going on in the UK and France where there was incumbent “PTT” telephone carriers but have now become lively competitive Internet-service markets. This includes how the tariff charts yielded “best-value” plans for retail telecommunications service as well as enabling factors for this level of competition. such as telecommunications legislation and regulations. It would also cover access to established physical telecommunications infrastructure in public areas like poles and pits; as well as creation and use of new infrastructure.

Conclusion

What I would like to see is that our telecommunications ministers and departments talk with their peers in both those countries ie OFCOM in the UK and ARCEP in France so they can know what was achieved for competitive telecommunications.

Articles

thinkbroadband :: Gigaclear begin fibre-to-the-home deployment in Hambleton

From the horse’s mouth

Fibre-Optic Gigaclear Network for Rutland Village – Gigaclear Press Release

Rutland Telecom (Hambleton page) (Home)

My Comments

There has been previous coverage about Rutland Telecom establishing fibre-optic next-generation broadband in Hambleton, Leicestershire in the UK. Now Gigaclear are in the throes of laying down the fibre-optic infrastructure for the next-generation broadband.

The Hambleton network has been financed through private investors in the Hambleton village. Here, they would want to see a triple return in the form of financial growth, community togetherness and a real next-generation Internet service.

Of course, Rutland Telecom will be the main service provider for this town’s next-generation broadband service even though it is part of Gigaclear. The service is intended to be online in October 2011.

Significant features will include VoIP telephony and 50Mbps headline speed for the service. As well, the router, which will be an optical-network terminal will have 300Mbps dual-stream 802.11n Wi-Fi and a 4-port Gigabit Ethernet switch. This also includes a future proof software design that supports IPv6 networks, which I think are the way to go for next-generation broadband. Rutland Telecom could offer as an alternative an optical-network terminal that connects up to user-supplied broadband routers, which would be required for Wi-Fi hotspots that have advanced user control.

GigaClear and Rutland Telecom have higher expectations with a “fat pipe” data link between Hambleton and London as well as streaming of high-definition television in to this neighbourhood during the 2012 Olympics.

What I have liked about this development and the Lyddington development is that they have become a catalyst for villages and towns across the UK wanting to achieve real broadband Internet on a par with the cities.

News Articles

thinkbroadband :: B4RN to deploy 1Gbps fibre network to rural parishes in Lancashire

Web site

B4RN website

My comments

Another valiant effort is taking place to connect rural England to real broadband Internet. This time it is happening in Lancashire’s rural areas north of Lancaster.

This is being achieved through a community-benefit company called “B4RN” which stands for “Broadband for Rural North”. The service is a fibre-to-the-premises service that is being provided to homes, farms and small businesses in these rural parishes. They have a goal to cover all of the 5162 properties but are working it in three phases. This is with the digging of the first phase to commence around Christmas 2011 and the first subscribers on board by January 2012.

What is interesting is that the capital for the effort is being raised through a share issue to the community and that the company is established as a “community-benefit” company where the assets are there for the community rather than being sold off if anything happens to the company.

The effort for he broadband rollout is being driven through shared local labour. It doesn’t matter whether it is to dig the necessary trenches or lay down the conduit and fibre-optic cable in order to connect up the properties. There is even support for training and upskilling locals into these areas where necessary and even the business’s office labour is local-based. One of the videos on the B4RN site even related this effort to how mains electricity was brought to rural Lancashire in the 1930s, through the use of community effort in preparing the infrastructure for the service.

At the moment, B4RN are selling the 1Gbps broadband services for £30 / month tax inclusive and with a £150 connection fee. A good question that may be raised with this service is whether B4RN would be looking at supplying VoIP telephony and / or IPTV as part of an extra-cost option or primarily offer a “purely-data” service for their customers. This is although most next-generation services typically will be expected to offer a “single-pipe triple-play” service with TV and telephony down the same connection as part of their service pack.

This service is another example of how rural communities can become active about bringing real broadband Internet to their areas rather than bemoaning the lack of the service. It also put forward the case for use of fibre-optic technology to deliver broadband to farms rather than unreliable radio services.

Article

BBC News – How will we benefit from super-fast broadband? (Audio – radio interview)

My Comments

I have listened to a BBC Radio 5 Live radio broadcast that was available on-demand from the BBC Website about how we will benefit from the next-generation broadband Internet technology that is being rolled out now.

The BBC Radio 5 Live interview compared the current situation with what happened 10 years ago when broadband “hot-and-cold running Internet” came on the scene. At that time, the primary method of connection to the Internet was dial-up, typically with a second PSTN phone line for Internet use. The primary personal Internet applications were emailing and Web surfing, with some instant-messaging thrown in. There were questions about whether we needed the higher bandwidth of the always-on broadband services or not.

Nowadays, the norm for Internet connectivity is an “always-on” broadband service of at least 1Mbps, more like 2Mbps and we are doing more with these services. Here we are using the Social Web, with services like Facebook and Twitter; as well as multimedia-driven computing applications like YouTube and IPTV / Web video. It would also include IP-driven telephony applications like VoIP including Skype; where you benefit from low-cost long-distance telephone calls, FM-grade voice telephony and the arrival of the videophone which was only thought of in science fiction.

This is although there is a persistent group of naysayers who continue to doubt the need for next-generation broadband. They would reckon that the current technology would satisfy current usage needs. Personally, I have seen the effects of Moore’s Law where the capacity increases and the cost decreases for a technology, thus opening up new applications or enhancing the experience of current applications.

One main application group that the broadcast talked of as being feasible with super-fast broadband was health and well-being applications mainly in the form of telehealth services. This included the idea of “independent ageing” which I would see as a reality as people live longer and the age-associated degradation takes longer to set in.

Personally, I would find that as the next-generation broadband Internet services light up in many neighbourhoods, it will be more about an enhanced and rich Internet experience.

Article – in German language

Breitbandanschlüsse für Königsbrunn – VDSL kommt

My comments and English summary of this article

Now Königsbrunn in Bavaria, Germany is to receive VDSL next-generation broadband Internet service, which means that it is time to make sure that the FritzBox that you plan to use in that town can now work with VDSL2 technology.

Just lately, the “groundbreaking” or “turning the first sod” ceremony took place in that town for the works that were associated with the extension of the network infrastructure for this service.

The work will initially cover the southern side of the town which is the newly-developed industrial zone, with a goal to have the area “wired up” and running by 2012. This infrastructure is expected to pass around 380 subscribers in that neighbournood. The next target will be to cover the north of the city but this will be a difficult assignment with the old established buildings and infrastructure that has existed before.

Money has come to this project from the local government (33000€) and the Bayern (Bavaria) state government (78000€) This is although there is a federal grant to local government of €100000 for next-generation-broadband projects, which is part of the goal to have 3 out of 4 German households to have access to this technology.

This effort was summed up by a comment by the Kónigsbrunn mayor — “To be viable in the future”, which is something to be thought of with the planning of these technologies.

I would say that this applies to neighbourhoods in many ways such as a town attracting larger employers or households also becoming workplaces such as the “teleworking / telecommuting” practices or creation of micro-businesses that benefit from the Internet.