Titel der Pr

1
Next Generation Access Networks - the Swiss
approach Philipp Metzger Vice-Director, Head
Telecom Services Division, OFCOM (Switzerland)
EFTA Seminar on NN and NGA Brussels, 16 March
2010
2
Outline

• 1. Basic facts and context
• 2. Investment activities
• 3. Role of the NRA
• 4. Assessment
• 5. Prospects

3
An environment conducive to investment in FTTH

• Excellent telecommunications infrastructureADSL
  coverage gt 98

4
VDSL coverage gt75
5
Cable coverage gt 85
6
HSPA coverage 90
7
Top position in broadband
8
High ARPU (16 more than the average)
Source Analysys, estimation Q3 2009
9
Readiness to invest

• Favourable conditions (high BB density ARPU)
• Tradition of infrastructure competition between
  the incumbent and the cable network operators
• Newcomers on the market local Utilities
  (electricity companies) want to build FTTH
• Zurichs decision to build FTTH in March 2007
  launched the race
• Projects abound, especially in cities

10
Motivation and behaviour of main actors

• Long term vision more bandwidth needed to offer
  triple-play service bundles including HDTV
• The incumbents copper network is approaching its
  limits
• Will of local utilities to invest in
  FTTH-networks
• for their own use (smart metering, smart grid)
• aiming at foothold in telecommunications market,
  initially based on open access model with one
  fibre
• CATV operators migrate towards DOCSIS 3.0
• offering higher bandwidth than xDSL technologies
• Incumbent wants its own a dedicated fibre
• keep nationwide access to the physical layer of
  the FTTH-network
• offer managed network termination equipment and
  end-to-end services

11
Role of the NRA

• Regulator (ComCom) has no legal tools to steer
  the development of FTTH (ULL and bitstream access
  have to be provided only on twisted copper wire)
• Regulator aims at
• - avoiding new monopoly
• - promoting competition between infrastructures
• - allow free consumer choice of provider
• Regulator acts as enabler of cooperation

12
Why multiple fibres?

• Incumbent proposes model with multiple fibres to
  facilitate cooperation with other network
  operators
• Single fibre network, as proposed by Utilities,
  only allows competition on top of the transport
  network (open access), but not at the
  infrastructure level
• Separate parallel fibre networks would only have
  very limited economic viability
• Multiple fibre model does not guarantee
  competition, but lowers entry barriers for
  potential FTTH operators and increases market
  contestability
• Multi-fibre model improves chances of
  infrastructure competition

13
Model of Cooperation
Swisscom local exchange
Swisscom manhole
OTO optical telecoms outlet
Optical access point
BEP building entry point
Optical distribution frame
Network interconnexion
Optical access point
L1 access
Utilities manhole
Inhouse
Drop
Feeder
14
Enabling co-operation

• High investment risk in FTTH deployment
• Consequence real willingness to do it in
  cooperation
• Regulator acts as enabler by organising
  roundtable talks with CEOs of most relevant
  network and service providers
• Roundtable has triggered several industry working
  groups under auspices of OFCOM

15
Working Group L1 assignment

• The task of the L1 working group was to
• define a technical standard for in-house wiring
• enable in-house installation to be shared by
  multiple network operators
• avoid the need for repeated installation work

16
Working Group L1 results

• Standard describes section from BEP to OTO.
• Important features of the specification
• splice enclosure at BEP allows access from
  multiple networks
• 4 fibres from the basement to each apartment
• 4 connector sockets at each outlet

17
Working Group L1B assignment

• The L1B working group was tasked by the
  Roundtable to address the following questions
• How can it be ensured that a layer 1 offer at
  both the manhole and the local exchange is
  available wherever FTTH is deployed?
• How can real competition between active line
  access (ALA) providers be ensured nationwide?
• How can infrastructure be built as efficiently as
  possible through optimisation of the number of
  access points and building on existing facilities?

18
Working Group L1B results

• Conclusions
• Service providers expect access to FTTH networks
  both on layer 1 and at the level of an active
  line access.
• Service providers expect non-discriminatory
  offers (layer 1 and active line access) for true
  competition to develop at retail level.
• Further exploiting ULL investments would require
  a layer 1 offer at least in the incumbents local
  exchanges.
• Utilities would need to offer common service
  platform for ALA in order to present real
  alternative to incumbent.

19
Working Group L2

• L2 working group tasked to determine relevant
  common issues concerning access to services on
  layer 2 (standardized access to open access
  networks)
• Publication of technical guidelines for interface
  standards and L2 service definitions based on
  Metro Ethernet Forum
• Proposal to create common platform for service
  providers to handle their use cases vis-à-vis
  network providers

20
Common L2 interfaces for data transport between
service provider and clients
Services Tel, TV, ISP, Data, etc.
Service providersALA users
Network providers ALA providers
ClientsService users
21
Working Group L2B

• Proposal for a single platform with one common
  proxy (common platform) over local platforms of
  network providers (multi-platform approach).
• Utilities of 5 cities will implement solution
  based on proposal.
• Once operating, platform should easily be
  extendable to encompass defined governance, rules
  and policy to fit a nationwide purpose.

22
Common platform for ordering and changing L2
connections
Service providers
Common platform Proxy
A10
A10
Orders changes
Network provider 2ALA provider 2
Network provider 1 ALA provider 1
U
U
Clients
23
Working Group 3 contract issues

• Tackling contractual issues between network
  operators and property owners regarding FTTH
  in-house installation
• non-discriminatory access for network operators
  to existing in-house installations
• avoiding duplication of construction work and
  in-house wiring
• enabling free choice of service for end users
  through swift and easy change of provider
• allowing protection of investments by network
  providers building in-house installation

24
Cooperation Utilities - Swisscom

• Framework agreements between Utilities and
  Swisscom to build and share multi-fibre FTTH
  access networks
• no duplication of physical network construction
  in the areas of drop cable and in-house
  installation
• both partners have access to layer 1 and are
  allowed to offer L2 services to other service
  providers
• in some cases, Utility has exclusive right to
  offer L1 access to third- party providers
• All drop and in-house cables provide 4 fibres per
  apartment.
• Access is provided at Swisscom local exchanges
  additional access points are possible.

25
Assessment

• Very good BB coverage with existing technologies
  thanks to infrastructure competition
• Encouraging level of activity both in FTTH and
  upgrade of CATV networks to DOCSIS 3
• Established players are challenged by new
  entrants
• Co-operation between FTTH players has become the
  rule
• Active support by Regulator has been effective
  and valued
• Dynamic is still fragile, only facts will tell
  the truth

26
Prospects

• During further NGA development, due attention
  needs to be given to
• continued encouragement and active support of
  co-operation between players
• business case of Utilities (open access model)
• development of players market positions
• question of regulatory tools
• how to cope with geographically differentiated
  offers
• NGA in peripheral regions / universal service
• ________