"
x
FTTx

SlideshowDebunking the Open Access Myths

Communications operator roles (Source: Ventura Next)
Communications operator roles (Source: Ventura Next)

Page 1 / 4   >   >>
jeffgavlin 12/1/2017 | 10:47:03 AM
Ammon, ID Somehow I missed this article when it was published.  The very first US-based Open Access network, as defined in this article, exists in Ammon, ID.  Three things worth mentioning:

1.  City owns the infrastructure to the premise.  Funded using Opt-In/Opt-Out Local Improvement District with a $3,000 Propertay Tax Lien.  20 year payout option at $17/month.  O&M charge is $16.50/month.  70% Take Rate to date.

2.  Software Defined Networking solution at the edge which means that consumers have dynamic choice of services with no contracts.  Point-and-click service acquisition.  Cloud-based marketplace.

3.  Started with two providers now have four providers and one of these providers from out of state.  In less than one year a 100MB/100MB connection went from $49/month to $9.95.

There is a lot of interest in how this network was funded but there is also interest in how the provider and consumer market there responded.  Thus far, very positive and competitive results.  You will see this network replicated in 2018 in more communities.
ITProjec39942 10/8/2016 | 3:48:16 AM
Internet has turned whole industries upside down It's true that the Internet has turned whole industries upside down - telecoms hasn't been spared.

But to get to the "Internet service", you need Internet connectivity. Open access FTTX networks help bring true high speed broadband connectivity to areas that would otherwise won't have it. 

1. In an open access model, fibre optic network (FON) is a utility. The owner of the FON has invested wisatasia in a "real estate" that will give job indo him +25 useful life and he operates it as a utility for the benefit of the tenants/residents/population.

2. Multiple service providers access and service the captive market via the FON network. This leads sma to competition at the services level. Even if kerjabumn it's purely for Internet access to be able to use your OTT services, this competition reduces enduser prices and improves take-up rates.  

As to whether to use GPON or active ethernet (P2P), ultimately it's a combination of engineering and business choices on the owner's part. We cpns went with AE because it suited our roadmap smk in terms of plug & play; ease of capacity upgrade; and we wanted to offer users with mission critical applications a rumahseminimalis dedicated link with associated SLAs. And we weren't confident of achieving this over a GPON architecture.
Richard Jones 6/2/2016 | 1:18:40 PM
Re: Agree/disagree? Thanks for your comment.

It is absolutely in place now in Sweden and South Africa and is true in 125 networks we have managed/grown/created.

Sometimes you may need to wait until the end of the month to swap over but you can select and have a new service up and running in 20 seconds.  The future is here :)
atif007 6/2/2016 | 1:15:52 PM
amazon Hey dude,amazon is best site for shoping if you want to purchesing to get amazon gift card and card codes is available here to get amazon gift card code its really awesome site ..
Mpere 3/3/2016 | 8:07:50 AM
To get the "Internet service", you need connectivity It's true that the Internet has turned whole industries upside down - telecoms hasn't been spared.

But to get to the "Internet service", you need Internet connectivity. Open access FTTX networks help bring true high speed broadband connectivity to areas that would otherwise won't have it. 

1. In an open access model, fibre optic network (FON) is a utility. The owner of the FON has invested in a "real estate" that will give him +25 useful life and he operates it as a utility for the benefit of the tenants/residents/population.

2. Multiple service providers access and service the captive market via the FON network. This leads to competition at the services level. Even if it's purely for Internet access to be able to use your OTT services, this competition reduces enduser prices and improves take-up rates.  

3. Because the FON is used by multiple service providers, you get better utilisation of the network. Further driving the cost to service each end user down. 

As to whether to use GPON or active ethernet (P2P), ultimately it's a combination of engineering and business choices on the owner's part. We went with AE because it suited our roadmap in terms of plug & play; ease of capacity upgrade; and we wanted to offer users with mission critical applications a dedicated link with associated SLAs. And we weren't confident of achieving this over a GPON architecture.
gregw33 2/8/2016 | 11:22:43 AM
Re: Agree/disagree? @kq4ym  In this scenario you are not changing "access providers" you are changing service provider.
kq4ym 1/30/2016 | 3:53:48 PM
Re: Agree/disagree? And I wait for the time when this basic rule becomes common: "Changing service provider should be easy, at the click of a mouse." But, I'm not going to hold my breath for that to be seem everywhere. As pointed out there lots of hitches in that becoming real for some time to come.

 
Joe Stanganelli 1/26/2016 | 11:57:03 AM
Re: Agree/disagree? I would take issue with the point that there is fundamentally no difference between primary networks and local, competing networks.  The difference may not be much from a technical standpoint, but -- for instance -- local mesh-based systems can offer enhanced privacy and fewer restrictions (albeit for other tradeoffs).

It fundamentally comes down to what you want and what's more important.
Joe Stanganelli 1/26/2016 | 11:51:40 AM
Re: Agree/disagree? Ah, you're talking to someone who only ever used pre-loaded ringtones.  ;)
brooks7 1/25/2016 | 7:39:38 PM
Re: Agree/disagree? Duh!,

Couple of things.  

1 - There is NO access going forward (in the long term) except Internet Access.

2 - Due to cost of development versus time to commoditization, there is not differentiation in hardware.  That means that costs for access are essentially the same for everyone. All these differentiated models assume you can build a competitive company differently.  

3 - Which I would argue do not exist - or if they do exist they exist in competition with Internet based solutions.  Which means you can develop a solution for a single city or one for the entire world.  The specific city ones will die quickly as has been shown.

Which means that the only way to build effective competition is to build new networks.  Not to rent space on existing ones.  If cities want to do that and then sell it to other people so be it.  But it will have essentially no advantages over the competition.  It will lower prices and that is about it.  So, is our problem with Internet Service price per bit per second?  If we are going to lower it, how are we going to encourage investment.  You know that metro and long haul cost changes are pennies compared to the dollars that individual access costs.  See the problem?  I think we need to admit its a monopoly - regulate it as one - and move on to bigger issues.  Trying to create fake competition wastes everybody's time and a lot of people's money.

seven

 
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE