ICTs should be available, affordable and accessible for all. Today, universal service, competition and associated issues of consumer protection and privacy have become all the more relevant given that digital technologies increasingly underlie the economic, social and political aspects of our lives. There is a need for international collaboration, cooperation and cross-cutting regulation.The author would like to discuss all these issues and invites comments. Disclaimer: Views are personal.
As a generalist interested in these issues, I find your blog entry interesting. If we assume that there needs to be a multi-stakeholder process that addresses both the needs of the potential users of broadband networks and those planning to supply them, we need to explore the options. You mention "high capacity Optic Fibre Cable (OFC) networks at the speed or with the spread required for desired levels of broadband penetration". There is no discussion of the nature of such OFC networks and whether these should be Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) or hybrid solutions using fibre for the backbone and coax or mobile telephone networks for the last 'mile' to the subscribers - both businesses and private individuals. The blog looks at 'levers' that can promote network roll-out including PPPs as a means of changing the cost structure of the backbone and competitive interest rates for capital investment by telcos. If we look at the overall business model for broadband networks, it would be useful to address some of the other 8 main building blocks including revenue streams and the value proposition for service providers. Rolling out hybrid structures that shorten the break-even period are arguably as important as competitive interest rates. There will be a backwash effect from the regulation of service provision and network neutrality that can promote or impede network roll-out. It would be useful to analyse comparable cases from other countries with significant rural populations to look at the underlying business models.
Flexibility in choice of technology is indeed an important aspect of competitive neutrality and avoidance of market distortions. This is part of the reason why bidding by end results (capacity, latency, redundancy of broadband back haul or access)is far superior to pre-specification of a technology solution and a very expensive one at that when we consider OFC.
In developing countries with vast rural areas, wireless in access is the more economical option. (In recognition of the same, the Indian NOFN limits fibre to a point of presence in the village rather than attempting to provide last mile connectivity, the cost of which would be prohibitive. Thus, it is essentially a backbone network).
The regulatory burden and net neutrality issues potentially associated with a monopoly service provider are very important considerations.
The author welcomes comments especially from an international best practices perspective. This would greatly enrich the debate on this topical issue.
ReplyDeleteAs a generalist interested in these issues, I find your blog entry interesting. If we assume that there needs to be a multi-stakeholder process that addresses both the needs of the potential users of broadband networks and those planning to supply them, we need to explore the options. You mention "high capacity Optic Fibre Cable (OFC) networks at the speed or with the spread required for desired levels of broadband penetration". There is no discussion of the nature of such OFC networks and whether these should be Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) or hybrid solutions using fibre for the backbone and coax or mobile telephone networks for the last 'mile' to the subscribers - both businesses and private individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe blog looks at 'levers' that can promote network roll-out including PPPs as a means of changing the cost structure of the backbone and competitive interest rates for capital investment by telcos.
If we look at the overall business model for broadband networks, it would be useful to address some of the other 8 main building blocks including revenue streams and the value proposition for service providers. Rolling out hybrid structures that shorten the break-even period are arguably as important as competitive interest rates. There will be a backwash effect from the regulation of service provision and network neutrality that can promote or impede network roll-out.
It would be useful to analyse comparable cases from other countries with significant rural populations to look at the underlying business models.
A very relevant analysis.
ReplyDeleteFlexibility in choice of technology is indeed an important aspect of competitive neutrality and avoidance of market distortions. This is part of the reason why bidding by end results (capacity, latency, redundancy of broadband back haul or access)is far superior to pre-specification of a technology solution and a very expensive one at that when we consider OFC.
In developing countries with vast rural areas, wireless in access is the more economical option. (In recognition of the same, the Indian NOFN limits fibre to a point of presence in the village rather than attempting to provide last mile connectivity, the cost of which would be prohibitive. Thus, it is essentially a backbone network).
The regulatory burden and net neutrality issues potentially associated with a monopoly service provider are very important considerations.