230 likes | 429 Views
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mission: To facilitate the development of Canada's communications infrastructure and stimulate next generation products, applications and servicesCanadian equivalent to Internet 2 and NGIprivate-sector led, not-for-profit consortiumconsortium form
E N D
1. CANARIE “Community Condo Fiber Networks”How public-private partnerships can lead towardearly deployment of FTTH
http://www.canarie.ca
http://www.canet3.net
2. Mission: To facilitate the development of Canada’s communications infrastructure and stimulate next generation products, applications and services
Canadian equivalent to Internet 2 and NGI
private-sector led, not-for-profit consortium
consortium formed 1993
federal funding of $300m (1993-99)
total project costs estimated over $600 M
currently over 140 members; 21 Board members CANARIE Inc
3. CA*net 3 National Optical Internet
4. The Context Policy makers around the world are trying to promote competition in telecom
A fundamental axiom is that competition drives innovation and lower costs
However competitive telecom market lately seems to be going in the opposite direction
Bankrupt CLECs, failed wireless companies
Real danger of re-monopolization of telecom
Regulators tend only to respond long after the horse has fled the barn
Are there other ways of promoting competition in telecom?
5. The good, the bad and the ugly Monopolies are bad
Duopolies are ugly
Private sector competition in an open competitive level playing field is good
As much as possible governments should not intrude into the marketplace.
However, sometimes government intrusion in the marketplace will produce significantly greater benefits to the economy and society where otherwise “to do nothing would be to do harm”
Bridges displace private sector ferry service operations
Free trade disrupted business plans of many private sector companies
Opening up of long distance competition disrupted business plans of incumbent telcos
To promote competition FCC had mandated open access and restrictions on RBOCs
Open access has largely been a failure and RBOCs are re-monopolizing
Is there a better way?
6. There is a clear trend in all formerly monopoly services to move to competitive services
Electrical distribution systems:
Separation of transmission costs versus power costs from competitive suppliers
Gas distribution systems: former regulated monopolies (unbundling is well underway)
Telecom is the last bastion of monopoly operation where services and infrastructure are provided by same company
A growing trend
7. How to introduce competition “Structural separation” or “Facilities based competition”
Road ways are examples of competition through structural separation while parallel railways are examples of facilities based competition
Structural separation is necessary where a natural monopoly exists – e.g. city gas lines, city power lines
To date telecom regulators have focused on “facilities based” competition and “open access”
Facilities based competition has been very successful in the long haul
But has been not been successful in the mtero because same company is operating on both sides of the fence competing on infrastructure and services
Mistaken belief that wireless can compete effectively with fiber
One strand of fiber has capacity of all of the world’s existing wireless systems
If fiber is a natural monopoly, particularly in last mile suburban areas, then “structural separation” maybe more important than facilities based competition
8. Issues Fiber is the ultimate end game
Once fiber is deployed no other technology can compete for fixed telecommunication services
One fiber strand has more capacity than combined bandwidth of all fixed wireless networks existing or planned
Wireless is important for mobility and last 50 feet
Value of wireless decreases with the cube of the distance
Carriers want to go for low hanging fruit in downtown cores
Little or no business case for single fiber in residential neighbourhoods
Unlikely to be several fiber companies serving neighbourhoods
So how do we provide both FFTH and competition in residential neighbourhoods?
9. Possible Solution Municipal Condominium Fiber Network
Governments partner with private sector to build condominium fiber networks to all public sector buildings
Government achieves social goal of affordable bandwidth to all public sector buildings
Condominium fiber allows many competitors to own strands of fiber into the neighbourhood
Cost of construction is shared amongst all participants
A change from the traditional telecom model where value of services is enhanced because of monopoly control of infrastructure
10. Municipal Condo Architecture
11. What is condominium fiber? Several next generation carriers and fiber brokers are now arranging condominium fiber builds
IMS, QuebecTel, Videotron, Cogeco, Dixon Cable, GT Telecom, etc etc
Organizations such as schools, hospitals, businesses, municipalities and universities become anchor tenants in the fiber build
Each institution gets its own set of fibers on a point to point architecture, at cost, on a 20 year IRU (Indefeasible Right of Use)
One time up front cost, plus annual maintenance and right of way cost approx 5% of the capital cost
Fiber is installed and maintained by 3rd party professional fiber contractors – usually the same contractors used by the carriers for their fiber builds
Institution lights up their own strands with whatever technology they want – Gigabit Ethernet, ATM, PBX, etc
New long range laser will reach 120 km
Typical cost is $25,000 (one time for 20 years) per institution
12. Benefits to Carriers For cablecos and telcos it help them accelerate the deployment of high speed internet services into the community
Currently deployment of DSL and cable modem deployment is hampered by high cost of deploying fiber into the neighbourhoods
Cable companies need fiber to every 250 homes for next generation cable modem service, but currently only have fiber on average to every 5000 homes
Telephone companies need to get fiber to every 250 homes to support VDSL or FSAN technologies
Wireless companies need to get fiber to every 250 homes for new high bandwidth wireless services and mobile Internet
It will provide opportunities for small innovative service providers to offer service to public institutions as well as homes
For e-commerce and web hosting companies it will generate new business in out sourcing and web hosting
13. Condo Fiber Costs - Examples Des Affluents: Total cost $1,500,00 ($750,00 for schools)
70 schools
12 municipal buildings
204 km fiber
$1,500,000 total cost
average cost per building - $18,000 per building
Mille-Isles: Total cost $2,100,000 ($1,500,000 for schools)
80 schools
18 municipal buildings
223km
$21,428 per building
Laval: Total cost $1,800,000 ($1,000,000 for schools)
111 schools
45 municipal buildings
165 km
$11,500 per building
17. South Dundas WE CHOSE TO BUILD OUR CO’S CENTRALLY AND THEY ARE ALWAYS NEAR THE BELL CO
WE OVER BUILT SUBSTANTIALLY
WE CIRCLED THE COMM AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS
WE PLACED JUNCTION BOXES NEAR THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS
WE CHOSE TO BUILD OUR CO’S CENTRALLY AND THEY ARE ALWAYS NEAR THE BELL CO
WE OVER BUILT SUBSTANTIALLY
WE CIRCLED THE COMM AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS
WE PLACED JUNCTION BOXES NEAR THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS
18. South Dundas Results Morrisburg , Iroquios Have Fibre Hung
Electronics In and Fibre Lit
ISP’s , ASP’s all Want In he Fibre
Major Employers Inquiring
Very Positive Attitude in Community
Digital Desert to Digital Oasis
This fall – FTTH to all homes
19. Peel County Municipal Fiber Network Mississauga, Brampton, Pell
200 km of Fibre
96 strand backbone
“Enough for small country”
12-60 strands elsewhere
12,000 strand-kilometers
Laid end-to-end = Victoria to St. John’s …...and back again The Public Sector Network now consists of almost 200 kilometers of single-mode fibre. The backbone rings are 96-strand fibre, while branches off the backbone range from 12 to 60 strands, depending on number of current and future locations to be served in the area.
When we were building PSN, we were advised that 96-strands was enough fibre to “run a small country”. However, since the cost of the fibre is a small proportion of the overall construction costs, we decided that we would rather have excess capacity than to have to go back and rebuild.
In all, PSN now consists of approximately 12,000 strand kilometers of fibre – meaning that if you took the individual strands and laid them end-to-end, they would stretch from St. John’s, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia – and back again.
The Public Sector Network now consists of almost 200 kilometers of single-mode fibre. The backbone rings are 96-strand fibre, while branches off the backbone range from 12 to 60 strands, depending on number of current and future locations to be served in the area.
When we were building PSN, we were advised that 96-strands was enough fibre to “run a small country”. However, since the cost of the fibre is a small proportion of the overall construction costs, we decided that we would rather have excess capacity than to have to go back and rebuild.
In all, PSN now consists of approximately 12,000 strand kilometers of fibre – meaning that if you took the individual strands and laid them end-to-end, they would stretch from St. John’s, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia – and back again.
20. Fredericton Fiber Build Started as Economic Development tool
MUSH, Govt., Research - ISP, carriers invited to participate
Build partners emerged quickly, $50,000 “donated” by three firms
Contracting now for 8 km phase 1, $110,000, complete Sept 2001
48 fiber min.
Phase II – FTTH to all homes
22. National Broadband Task Force Mandate:To map out a strategy and advise the Government on best approaches to make high-speed broadband Internet services available to businesses and residents in all Canadian communities by the year 2004.
To ensure Canada’s competitiveness in a global economy
To address the Digital Divide
To create opportunities for all Canadians
35 members including carriers, educators, librarians, communities, equipment manufacturers, etc
Chair – David Johnston
Final recommendations – June 17th
23. Gigabit Internet to the Home With condominium fiber builds multiple carriers share in the cost of fiber build out to neighbourhood nodes serving approximately 250 homes
It is impractical to have multiple carriers own individual strands to each and every home:
Therefore let the customer have title to individual fiber from the residence to the neighborhood node
The customer connects to the service provider of their choice at the neighborhood node
The result is third commercial network running in parallel to telephone and cable for high speed Internet only
Avoids regulatory and technical issues of 911, number portability, etc
Encourages SMEs and entrepreneurs to build the infrastructure
Customer premise device is very simple and cheap
PON will be retrogressive step for FTTH
24. Gigabit to the Home