The concept of open access is not new. After all, network operators have been unbundling their DSL network for the past ten years. The arguments also have not changed and centre on opening the market to new entrants, providing more choices to the end customer, improving quality of service and overall end-user experience, writes Shirley Sheffer
 
 
 



Shirley Sheffer: open access takes the concept of
unbundling to a higher level
 

While those factors remain desirable, providing open access for a fibre network is a bit more complex. Migration of the access infrastructure to fibre access networks has been, and is, a slow and gradual process. Some network operators face a growing need to upgrade their infrastructure to fibre and be able to provide higher bandwidth and advanced services to their customers. These operators wish to better compete with growing competition from multi-service operators (MSOs) and alternative service providers. In many cases, it is the government that encourages the incumbent to upgrade its infrastructure so it can provide more bandwidth at reasonable prices to residential customers as the clear positive effects of delivering bandwidth on a national level are becoming a consensus. Yet, a valid short term business case with a reasonable return on investment for building FTTH or even FTTC networks has been difficult to justify.

Open access takes the concept of unbundling to a higher level. Through open access, network operators make their most advanced infrastructure – their fibre access network – available to other service providers. At first glance, it seems counter-intuitive. After all, these network operators are spending millions of dollars on upgrading their last mile access network to bring high-speed internet and advanced services to their customers. Why would they willingly share it with others?

The easy answer comes from countries’ regulatory agencies. In many countries, the government has stepped in to promote broadband penetration under a series of stimulus programs. Most of them involve some form or other of open fibre access, as it is definitely the most advanced technology now available for broadband services. Governments have realised that bandwidth is a basic necessity, just like water and electricity. The recent economic slowdown has just reiterated this point, as many people made do without other ‘basics,’ but did not give up on their broadband connections. These programmes, often involving funding, have one goal: to expand high-speed broadband access to the majority of the population. Australia is a case in point, where the government has put aside A$43 billion (US$37 billion) to bring fibre access to 90% of the population and high-speed wireless to the remaining 10%, through its National Broadband Network (NBN) initiative.

However, when you look carefully at the business plan for fibre deployment, it makes economic sense for network operators to not only agree to open access, but also to promote and initiate it. The drive is quite simple: eventually, most network operators will realise that opening their fibre networks to other providers will have the same effect as the unbundling of DSL had ten years ago. Open access will generate a new source of revenues to make up for declining ARPUs, and to decrease the payback period of the fibre investment.

Another reason to open their networks is that wholesale accelerates the take-up of services at a rate that network operators could not do by themselves. The faster take-up means that the return on investment tipping point will arrive faster. At the end of the day – everyone wins.
 

What does an open access network look like?

At first glance, it looks like any other network. For the end-user, the entire process is transparent. Except now, the end user, the residential customer, has a choice of service providers who compete for its business. Moreover, with an open access configuration, the end user is not forced to buy all of its services bundled from a single service provider, but can in fact get its voice services from one service provider, while subscribing to an internet data service from another. In most parts of the world, end-users have a selection of different service providers for telephony and broadband to choose from. And, with an open access fibre network, the available service can often get upgraded to up to 100Mb/s or more. Depending on the service provider, the end user will have access to more and new services that were not available until now.

For network operators, there are two main approaches for their open access deployment: physical separation of the network or virtual network separation. It is up to network operators to decide and consider the pros and cons in each approach. However, often the path is dictated by the regulatory agency of each country.

In a virtual model, network providers do not hand-off an actual demarcation point at the central office, but rather their virtual ‘network’ continues onto the shared metro infrastructure to a different location. Network operators provide tunneling and wholesale use of their network to service providers, enabling them to provide all services to the end-user. All the equipment, including the customer premise equipment, belongs to the network operator. Therefore, soft issues such as quality of service are harder to allocate to the service provider or to the network operator as much of the virtual path is part of shared connections.

In a physical separation model, the network operator provides an actual demarcation point where the service provider connects on both sides of the network – towards the metro and towards the customer – with its own equipment. In reality, the fibre access of the network operator becomes a large virtual switch that service providers can connect to on both the network side and on the end-customer side.

It is important to note that some regulators did not enforce any requirements that would enforce one model or the other on their incumbent network operator. In such cases, a virtual model is coherent with regulatory requirements.

In the countries where incumbents are deploying open access for their citizens, it provides innovative marketing and business benefits:

• Much faster deployment of high-speed broadband, as service providers don’t need to invest in their own access infrastructure and can, from day one, start offering advanced services
• Such a model provides for better service coverage, by multiple competitive service providers, as well as lower cost for new service introduction to new areas
• Service providers can focus their efforts on introducing new technologies and services that are higher up the value chain. They do not need to develop technical infrastructure expertise, which is not their core business
• Such a model enables voluntary cooperation between competing service providers, a win-win situation in any country
• Access price to all service providers is the same, without unfair advantages to the network operator’s in-house service provider
• Controlled quality of service means managed agreements between the network operator and service providers, benefitting the end-user

 
There are three main differences between the two approaches:

1. Infrastructure independence: With full physical separation, each provider receives, in effect, its own separate network from the central office. There is a physical handover at the central office between the network operator and the service provider, and the service provider can be assured that the quality of service it receives at the ‘last mile’ is quantifiable, and that from that point it is responsible for its own services.

2. Technology is transparent to the service provider: In both cases, the service provider can fully focus on the services it provides to its end customers. It is the network operator who adopts the offered technology according to the requirements of the service provider. Where VDSL is sufficient – VDSL can be provided. Where high bandwidth (up to 100Mb per home) is required – the FTTH technology is utilised. There is great flexibility for the network operator to have the same platform supporting both a FTTC (with VDSL reaching the home from the curb), or full FTTH network – and being able to decide, per case, what is needed. It allows the network operator to grow its business, without having to commit to a more expensive fibre option.

3. Ensured quality of service and security measures: With clear boundaries in a physical separation model, performance and quality of service are easier to measure and control as the demarcation points are clearly defined. Such architecture allows network operators to lease, in a flexible, controlled and secure way, their fibre infrastructure to other service providers. When the same physical infrastructure is used for different service providers, all the way to a termination point at a different network location, that task becomes much more challenging.

As the world evolves towards FTTC/FTTH deployments, a new architecture, as well as a business model of open access, emerges. In this model, the network operator provides wholesale infrastructure to multiple service providers. Two main approaches can be seen – both legitimate, both delivering and both being implemented by leading tier-1 network operators globally. Yet, the network operator must also consider: local regulation, service providers’ preference in its region, quality of service control issues, error detection and security issues, as well as the simplicity of its proposed solution. GTB
Shirley Sheffer works in product marketing at ECI Telecom