Submitted by racbarroso on Fri, 2012-06-22 11:47

Rural is falling behind, loosing strength and relevance in the discussion.
No one, from TELCO to analyst said there is a problem in big cities because they are profitable. If so why is there a need to discuss more or less regulation, why is there a need to impose, using regulation, some fibre sharing.

The focus must be open ducts to every operators, from incumbent to new telco ... Every single duct must be shared, in the telco sector and multi-sector.

In rural and dark (no fibre) areas of europe make public investments, funded by EU, to promote cohesion of the territories. These investments should focus on ducts/poles and backbone leaving the last mile to private sector promoting there investment with tax deduction or any other form of supporting private initiative. Force telco market to go symmetric, for any (example) 10 citizens covered in the crowded areas obligation to cover 1 rural ...

Another issue that has been discussed around this issue is the role of local gov and the lack of awareness that occurs in some areas. For this it is needed to promote, besides national broadband plans, regional and local broadband plans that can understand the needs and differences of the physical place where there is lack of broadband.

In order to promote SME it is also needed, in my region, to take ICT into the companies ... And for this action is needed to connect, using aggregation and public investments, entrepreneurial Parks with fibre pushing bandwidth and services.

Action:
- share ducts everywhere from everyone, not only incumbent.
- promote local investments in ducts, poles to facilitate telco's investment in fibre
- leave sharing to a market decision
- force public owned fibre usage and openness
- regional/local broadband action plans
- connect entrepreneurial parks if the market lacks a solution

Group audience:

High-speed connections

Comments

Thanks Rui, I share your

Submitted by conder on Fri, 2012-06-22 12:47

Thanks Rui, I share your views in many of those points. I feel the workshops missed an opportunity yesterday by focussing too much on the urban issues. I still think the general consensus from the online forums were for altnet support in rural areas to provide competition to drive fibre further into the heart of the cities using market forces. I thought the Portugal example yesterday was brilliant and am horrified at your duct sharing stories, have you got a case study/blog/more info about it?

Duct sharing is active in PT

Submitted by racbarroso on Fri, 2012-06-22 12:51

Duct sharing is active in PT since 2004 with ORAC at Portugal Telecom. also public ducts are open to all telco. We need to have symmetric access to use other TELCO. From my side, worKing with local gov, what we need is to develop more ducts to support fibre investments, and if needed in some specific cases like entrepreneurial parks to build fibre and push ict to sme.

Rui, I share your opinion on

Submitted by ferencjacobs on Sat, 2012-06-23 12:59

Rui, I share your opinion on opening up things. But if there is one thing that is made very, very clear by the incumbents joining panel discussions, that rural development in their eyes will never be profitable. Or they want protection otherwise they won't deploy (PT). And I totally understand their point of view. They made a clear statement of not moving into rural area's thursday.

But as an inhabitant of a rural community this leaves me with the conclusion that no one cares for my business, my children's future and education, and my senior neighbors who have to travel to a hospital every week just for a brief consult which perfectly can be done through an HD video-connection. This might sound more pathetic then I intended, but in fact this is the reality.

In my opinion this goes much further then Duct-sharing or technical issues to provide broadband to rural area's as well as urban area's. This is also about providing future proof local organized business models. And in that I share Chris Conder's comment above that the workshop mainly covered urban issues.

In that way the remarks of Crister Mattson were very usefull and hopefull for every rural municipality in Europe. In Sweden locally organized networks provide new economies to municipalities and even 86% of them are profitable.

Think of this remark a little bit longer. Íf there is a good chance to make local networks profitable by using other ways or telecom-models (in stead of incumbent business models) what effect would it have on YOUR community? What implications would this profitability (that preferrably remains local) have on services that can be provided to any member?

I asked friends and neighbours this question:'Would you like a 100Mbit connection'? Their answer: 'What do I need it for?' I rephrased my question: 'Would you like the right of say about the content on your connection, would you like e-health services for your mother and educational facilities for your kids because the school will close due to budget reasons?' Their answer was clear: 'Yes, if you put it that way I understand why I need the connection'.

Duct-sharing and technical issues is only a part of the total strategy that leads to open profitable networks. In my opinion the workshop missed an unique opportunity to talk about the issues that really matter. In Sweden they set perfect examples and it is a very wise thing to do for rural Europe to look to the north for answers. If they can do it, why can't we? Isn't that the central point of being a European Union anyway?

I agree, mybe i was not clear

Submitted by racbarroso on Sat, 2012-06-23 14:07

I agree, mybe i was not clear about fibre. Public action should take place with regional and local broadband action plans where fibre must be built (rural or not market covered areas) and shared. Regulation must force in this case telco incumbent to provide services in the public built fibre.

UK has PIA which in theory

Submitted by andrew on Mon, 2012-06-25 13:29

UK has PIA which in theory allows duct sharing for the final mile, but people complain about the cost.

So on one hand we have incumbent saying its Open and meeting national regulator duct sharing plans, but altnets saying they don't like the cost.

Also we have altnets who don't offer a reverse situation, i.e. their ducting is usually closed.

It cannot all be duct sharing stopping roll-out, as have seen plenty new build estates where builders install ducting, but an altnet e.g. VirginMedia won't use it.

I think the true cost of PIA

Submitted by conder on Fri, 2012-07-06 22:59

I think the true cost of PIA is the excess charges, not so much the rental of the ducts, but the fact that the customer wanting access has to pay for duct clearance, repair, bla bla and double it for luck.
Its probably cheaper to build new than rent from the incumbent. The real beauty of duct share is in places like the london sewers, where there is enormous capacity and space. Also they know where they are, unlike most telecoms stuff which is never where its expected to be or where they tell you it is. When there are repairs done round here we have to tell the engineers where their stuff is, their maps never correspond to reality.

Also PIA isn't a right lot of good in rural areas where stuff is direct buried or aerial. Unless you use the old copper as a pull line for fibre ;)