Peter Shearman NextGen 09

577 views

Published on

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager with the Broadband Stakeholder Group discusses the Cots project at NextGen 09 in Leeds on 16 and 17 November 2009

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
577
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peter Shearman NextGen 09

  1. 1. The COTS Project Commercial, operational and technical standards for independent local open access networks Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG 17 November 2009
  2. 2. The context <ul><li>Commercial landscape is changing – expect a proliferation of new networks – particularly in the ‘final third’ but not exclusively </li></ul><ul><li>New models being driven by partnerships between communities, public sector and a range of commercial players – the capacity to innovate and harness local resources is key – especially in low density areas </li></ul><ul><li>Networks will be very different in terms of their scale, structure, scope and technology – no single model </li></ul><ul><li>Debate tends to focus on the investment challenge - getting the infrastructure on/in the ground – but service provision is just as challenging </li></ul>
  3. 3. The concern <ul><li>Even where networks have been funded and built, they have often struggled to attract service providers </li></ul><ul><li>Small scale means that service providers are faced with high ‘back office’ costs when they try and access these customers </li></ul><ul><li>This is bad news for all: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumers have less or more often no choice of service provider </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service providers can’t access potential customers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network providers fail to optimise their potential revenues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In the worst cases this can make the underlying business model unsustainable </li></ul><ul><li>Not a problem that can be solved on an individual project basis – requires collective/collaborative effort to resolve </li></ul>
  4. 4. The objective <ul><li>To work with representatives of independent local and community–led broadband projects, national network operators and major ISPs to develop an efficient standardised approach to enable a broad range of service providers to offer retail services over local or community-led open networks to end users. </li></ul><ul><li>As a result consumers and small businesses should be able to access a wide choice of service providers, regardless of how the underlying infrastructure is provisioned or owned. </li></ul><ul><li>What its not: COTS not trying to address all issues related to new independent access networks. Many important issues - how projects are developed, designed, architected, funded etc - but for other fora (INCA etc). </li></ul>
  5. 5. The Win-Win-Win <ul><li>Consumers – choice and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Service providers – customers </li></ul><ul><li>Network operators – wholesale revenues </li></ul>
  6. 6. The consensus <ul><li>Is there any? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Growing discussion and interest in this issue within the industry over the last 18 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing willingness to engage in finding a solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital Region, USC & Final Third Project provided new impetus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus about the need to address the problem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In other markets, the issue is being discussed (Sweden) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. The focus <ul><li>Part 1: Key (minimum) requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Wholesale product set (active (ALA) and passive) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Product design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Product capabilities and level of ISP control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for variety of CPE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Operation, administrative and maintenance (OAM) standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provisioning and install arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fault reporting/ mgt, incl engineer visits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other technical, commercial and operational interfaces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer relationship mgt </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other commercial and contractual arrangements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contracts – SLAs, SLGs, and QoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Migration and switching arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network development over investment lifecycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pricing policy and settlement (receipts and payments) </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. The focus <ul><li>Part 2: Implementation(s) </li></ul><ul><li>How COTS should be implemented is unclear at this stage. </li></ul><ul><li>Various solutions being suggested – JON regional hubs; single national clearing house; localised implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Preferred approach may become clearer once the requirements have been fully scoped. </li></ul><ul><li>BSG has no view at this stage </li></ul>
  9. 9. The guiding principles <ul><li>The aim of this initiative is to promote inclusion, accessibility and consumer choice </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should seek to minimise cost and complexity for both network operators and service providers </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should maximise the opportunity for innovation at the local level, and the retail level </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should seek to standardise and aggregate service elements where necessary to minimise cost and prevent geographic segmentation </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should where possible build on existing work and standards </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should be agnostic regarding the underlying access infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>The approach should develop a solution that is proportionate to the scale of the stakeholders involved and the issue being addressed </li></ul>
  10. 10. The stakeholders BT Large network operators and builders Small network operators and builders Vendors COTS INCA Property developers CPs BIS Wireless and satellite Standards bodies Other Projects Ofcom RDAs/ DAs
  11. 11. The process <ul><li>Provisional: </li></ul><ul><li>Project forum established </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Held 1 st meeting 21 st September. Forum open to all those who wish to actively participate. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>6-8 person steering group to be drawn from stakeholder ‘blocs’ to take work forward </li></ul><ul><li>Working groups to develop set of draft requirements around each the three elements </li></ul><ul><li>Forum to consult on draft requirements once developed </li></ul><ul><li>Will then move on to implementation issues </li></ul>
  12. 12. The process Steering Group Working Group Requirements Implementation 3 2 4 6 Wider consultation 5 Working Group Working Group Steering Group 1 12 months
  13. 13. The timescales <ul><li>Consensus will take time to develop - many stakeholders only just starting to think through the issues and implications for their businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Indicative 12 month timescale, depending on work required </li></ul><ul><li>Steering group will take a more definitive view </li></ul><ul><li>NICC seeking early input into ALA development </li></ul>

×