Transcript Document

Next Generation Access:
A Global / Policy Perspective
Maury D. Shenk
27 June 2007
The Big Question
 Is telecommunications network access a natural monopoly or
a field ripe for competition?
Where Have We Been?
 In the beginning, telecoms access was a monopoly
 Facilities-based access competition:
• UK – Mercury / C&W
• Cable networks in various countries
• Wireless networks around the world
 Access competition through regulation:
•
•
•
•
Local loop unbundling
Wholesale resale obligations
UK – BT equivalence undertakings
US – Telecommunications Act of 1996
 These have been partial solutions for access monopolies
Where Are We Going?
 Growth of the Internet has generated
broadband requirements that are
exceeding the capacity of copper
networks.
 But will the building of new networks
generate any different result from a
competition perspective than for existing
copper networks?
Some Concerns
 BT-sponsored competition study (June 2007): “The future development
of telecoms, with Next Generation Access (NGA) and Next Generation
Network (NGN) network architectures, will tend to entrench and extent
the uncompetitive element of the network further from the customer.
However, it will potentially increase the scope for a services layer,
which is geography and network independent, provided this is
anticipated and supported by appropriate regulation.”
 European Regulators Group NGA consultation (May 2007): “With the
deployment of NGA networks, regulators need to consider whether
these new networks result in a fundamental change in the underlying
economics of wireline local access networks as a result of the roll-out
of new infrastructure that may impact on the competitive dynamics of
the relevant market(s). Traditionally, current fixed local access
networks have constituted a non-replicable asset.”
Fibre to the Home / Building
 “State of the art” for next generation access
 Highest-cost option
 Examples:
• France – France Telecom
• US – Verizon
• Japan – NTT
Fibre to the Node / Cabinet
 Less-expensive than fibre to the home / building
 Typically involves VDSL over copper to the
home
 Examples:
• Germany – Deutsche Telekom
• Netherlands – OPTA
• US – AT&T
 Can co-exist with current ADSL, but technical
issues can exist
IP at the Network Layer
 Next generation access at a different layer of the network
• TCP / IP instead of TDM
• Can co-exist with various physical layer technologies
 Example:
• BT – 21CN
Cable
 Existing option, but co-axial cable has higher
bandwidth than twisted copper pairs
 Can’t deliver the bandwidth of fibre
 Examples:
• UK – NTL
• Various other countries have higher
penetration
WiMAX
 WiMax = Worldwide Interoperability
for Microwave Access
 Greater range than Wi-Fi offers
prospect of broad coverage
 A wildcard for facilities-based
competition for next-generation
access
Conclusions
 Commercial evolution will drive regulatory evolution
 Key issue is the viability of multi-network, facilities-based
competition for next-generation access
 It’s too soon to say whether the situation will be different
than for copper networks
 How many competitors is enough?
 Wireless is the wildcard