"Hi – just read your model overview at http://nextgenerationaccess.com/How/Model/newmodel.html
Interesting direction, however elsewhere we are seeing examples for the network operator and access infrastructure provider being the SAME entity BUT not a telco or able to deliver services over the network thus neutral. (think fair and equitable access for all)...
These networks are 100% open access – however both actives and passives are owned by the ‘infrastructure owners’ i.e. also non-traditional telco entities ~ think councils, developers, landlords, co-ops etc.... and typically the design, delivery and operation are outsourced to a 3rd party ~ think IT integrator (due to lack of in-house skillsets or indeed interest from the new generation of infrastructure owners)....
This model then allows for large ‘footprint’ comms providers to deliver layer 2 types services into the network (and many others) via a single interconnect elsewhere and more, nimble, localised comms providers looking to innovate via layer 3 and even further up the stack.
As stated, a number of real world examples exist with the above model (and incidently Openreach/Ofcom ‘offer’ similar via ALA Ethernet.) and we think it’s the cleanest model.
The issue we’re presently battling with – and the most important/significant – is to do with the build out of ‘islands of fibres’ (inevitable unless govt writes BT a cheque) and the commercial realities of the larger comms providers connecting to them – hence the next step being for UK plc (via various gov bodies/agencies) now looking at the viability of a ‘central’ UK POP with all the Comms providers on one side and links to ‘islands of fibre’ on the other.....
There’s probably not one way to go – however our research and effort to date appears to show favour to the model we describe above....
A technical colleague has further commented - I don’t agree with this multiple network operator model – which is effectively an unbundled fibre network (Ofcom included both ‘active’ and ‘passive’ connection models as options for NGA and this would fall under the ‘passive’ model) If every operator is installing their own equipment and they have to compete with all the other operators the number of potential customers may not stack up to cover their costs. Operators will cherry-pick services that give higher returns and customers will be starved of niche services, i.e. smaller operators offering local or niche services will not be able to cover the cost of the equipment.
These issues are eradicated with the prescribed model we speak about and is totally non-discriminatory."
Posts
Note: I have updated the model on the NGA site, www.nextgenerationaccess.com with this comment in mind.
ReplyDeleteTake a look here and let me know if you agree (or not): http://nextgenerationaccess.com/How/Model/newmodel.html