Fibre Optical Networks for Municipalities in Greece: Myths and Realities

1. Fibre Optical Networks for Municipalities in Greece: Myths and Realities CHRISTOS BOURAS Associate Professor Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics, University of Patras, Greece Research Academic Computer Technology Institute (RACTI) http://ru6.cti.gr/bouras/

2. Overview of FTTH projects all over the world (1/2) • Sweden (Stokab, Sollentuna, Hudiksvall, Västerås, etc.) • Finland • Netherlands (Amsterdam, the Hague, Tilburg, Almere and Nuenen) • Switzerland • Norway • Ireland • United Kingdom • France (Siperec, Paris, etc.) • Austria (Vienna andRied) • Denmark

3. Overview of FTTH projects all over the world (2/2) • Germany • Italy • Spain (LocalRet) • Portugal • Russia • Slovenia • Slovakia • Lithuania • USA (UTOPIA project, Lafayette) • Canada • New Zealand

4. Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm) (1/3) • Stokab was founded in 1994 and is owned by the company group Stockholms Stadshus AB, which is in turn owned by the City of Stockholm • The main task of Stokab is to provide IT-infrastructure in the Stockholm region and to lease out fiber optic connections • Its role is to lay an operator-neutral foundation for IT infrastructure • Stokab provides physical networks that are open to all operators and service providers for the delivery of services to their end-users

5. Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm)(2/3) • The same infrastructure allows public agencies, businesses, property owners and organizations to meet their data and telecommunication needs through dedicated networks • The municipality of Stockholm – through Stokab – behaves equally to all the “players”, creating in this way a confidential state, which in turn, contributes to the rapiddevelopment of this region • Stokab offers the possibility for development of other business networksthat can adapt to the special needs of each unit

6. Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm)(3/3) • Stokab’s business concept as an operator-neutral network owner is to: • lay the foundation for the IT infrastructure in the Stockholm region, particularly in the City of Stockholm, and thereby contribute to the region’s development • function as communication network operator for the City of Stockholm’s internal networks to serve both administrative purposes and public needs in the areas of education, childcare, recreation and culture • in collaboration with players in the market, to promote the ongoing and systematic rollout of infrastructure for wireless communication in Stockholm • in partnership with the municipal housing corporations, to stimulate and drive development of the broadband market in the City and the region

7. USA – Burlington, Vermont (1/3) • Private Companies • City Network • Universal Network (interconnects all areas throughout a city)

8. USA – Burlington, Vermont (2/3) • 4 Goals • Universal Access (reasonable prices) • Open Access (similar to public streets) • Future Proof (ensure long term usage, provide flexibility and scalability) • Financially Self-Sustaining (financing by end users – and not through taxes)

9. USA – Burlington, Vermont (3/3) • Implementation Phases

10. Argument in favor of government-sponsored broadband networks

11. Argument against government-sponsored broadband networks

12. Open Network • A network that: • Network Operator andService Operator are discrete entities • Reciprocal contracts between end users and service providers • Network Operator is not involved in any other operation except for the connectivity service • End users may select a service from any service provider over a shared infrastructure controlled by the network operator • This is anOPEN NETWORK

13. Cost Factors • The cost depends on: • FTTH Architecture • Material Prices • Existing Infrastructure (underground or air infrastructure) • Characteristics of ground/ underground • Cost for Working • Urban/Suburban/Rural (houses/km2)

14. FTTΗ architectures • Home RunFiber (HFR) • Passive Optical Netowrk (PON) • WDM PON • Active Ethernet

15. From Copper to Fiber

16. FTTH Potential Development from 2006 to 2011

17. Factors that affectFTTH Deployments (1/3)

18. Factors that affectFTTH Deployments (2/3)

19. Factors that affectFTTH Deployments (3/3)

20. How Incumbents face FTTH

21. Utility projects of FTTH deployments

22. Suggestions for FTTH deployment models in Greece • Characteristics of FTTH deployment models for Greece: • To grant non discriminatory access to all carriers, the business model of the player operating the network should be based on an open network approach • To grant sustainability of the business case digging costs should be reduced as much as possible, therefore involving all players that can contribute to this main objective • If digging activities cost reduction will not be enough to allow a sustainable business model government subsidies (either local or central) need to be planned • Support of the Government in issuing relevant laws is key for the success of a FTTH project

23. Main players to deploy FTTH project in Greece (1/2) Main assets The government/ competition authority could contribute granting that utility companies should offer telecommunication services based on an open network approach and ensuring non discriminatory access to all carriers Greek landscape • Local Gas companies (EPA/ SPA), that are currently in the process of digging seem to be the best candidates to deploy also fiber • Power company, PPC, seems to have mainly aerial connections, therefore can become a player in the case the decision to dig for the core business is taken in Athens and Thessaloniki • Sewer and water system company appear to have already ditches in place but the systems do not grant access for ductsίνας • Digging activities facilitation due to core business development • Capital to invest, if a business opportunity is envisaged Utility Companies

24. Main players to deploy FTTH project in Greece (2/2) Main assets Greek landscape The government could contribute granting that whenever a digging activity is under deployment, ditches should be available also for laying fiber optic networks • Coordination of many different players to grant “clever digging” • Simplify authorizations, permits, etc… • Possibility to invest public funds to deploy the network • The Greek municipalities could be the facilitators and coordinators of digging activities and could also simplify the process and timing to get authorizations and permits to dig • Low possibility to invest since no public funds are available • The Government could contribute with specific State Aid for extra digging Collectivity of Municipalities

25. Prevailing Model for FTTH Development in Greece • A Public and Private Consortium: • Private Companies • Municipalities • Public Benefit Organizations • OTHERS ?

26. Note • Streets were built in order to provide transportation for all vehicles (OPEN ACCESS) • BROADBAND IS A PUBLIC INFRASTUCTURE WITH GREAT IMPACT ON LOCAL ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

27. Bibliography (1/2) • Fiber Optics for Government and Public Broadband: A Feasibility Study • Prepared for the City and County of San Francisco, January 2007 • Municipal Broadband: Digging Beneath the Surface • Balhoff & Rowe, LLC • Towards Technologically and Competitively Neutral Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Infrastructure • AnupamBanerjee and Marvin Sirbu, Carnegie Mellon University • State aid, open access and market size: two cases of fith network implementation in Dutch municipalities • B.M. Sadowski, M. de Rooij en J. Smits, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands, Working Paper 06.09 • Burlington Telecom Case Study, Christopher Mitchel, August 2007

28. Bibliography (2/2) • FTTH in Europe: Forecast & Prognosis 2006-2011, Heavy Reading • An overview of Fiber, European (Muni and other) Fiber to the Home and Fiber backbone projects, Dirk van derWoude, Αugust 2007 • http://www.vonmag-digital.com • Oct 2006 • http://www.ftthblog.com • http://www.lightreading.com • http://www.fiberevolution.com • Blog • Fiber Bible Update – An Overview of Fiber • http://www.ftthcounsil.eu • http://broadband.cti.gr • http://interreg-broadband.cti.gr

29. Questions