Gerlas van den Hoven - Technical view upon open access


Published on

Presentation at the Workshop on Municipal Fiber Networks, October 24th 2011 in Ghent, Belgium. The workshop was organised by Ghent University - IBCN / IBBT. More information about this event can be found at http://

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gerlas van den Hoven - Technical view upon open access

  1. 1. Technical view on open accessGerlas van den Hoven - Genexis - Eindhoven, NL
  2. 2. The information age Today we enter the information age2 © Genexis BV
  3. 3. No information age ... without good infrastructure What is the right technology choice? How to protect the investment? Open or closed network? How to make money?3 © Genexis BV
  4. 4. Open or closed networks?• Traditional business models are vertically integrated ‣ Larger economy of scale ‣ Bigger piece of the pie ‣ Market dominance ‣ But also: technically the easiest solution• Business models of the Digital Age are open ‣ Every person makes his own choices: no more one size fits all products ‣ Each layer in the food chain is becoming a specialism ‣ No single killer app - the success of mobile apps/iPhone lies in the fact that they are not developed by Apple or AT&T ‣ And: open standards enable interoperability Openness creates business opportunities4 © Genexis BV
  5. 5. Opening FTTH networks 3 tiers Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Active Active Active Active network network network network Passive Passive Passive network network network Network Closed Open elements model model5 © Genexis BV
  6. 6. Roles in the foodchain Marketing expertise, customer Service Very different roles interactions, retail Very different expertise Active Network expertise, operational excellence, wholesale business case It would be a surprise to network find these all combined in a single company Passive Financial expertise, long-term view, And don’t forget about the network security of investment, and CASH! CASH! Network elements6 © Genexis BV
  7. 7. Fiber infrastructure• Considerations ‣ Point-to-point vs point-to-multipoint ‣ Position and size of PoPs ‣ FTTHome vs FTTBuilding vs FTTCurb ‣ Value of the investment• Deployment examples ‣ Verizon (“incumbent”) deploys point-to-multipoint FTTH in suburban areas ‣ Netcologne (“newer operator”) deploys FTTB in MDU environment ‣ Reggefiber (“investor”) deploys point-to-point FTTH in SDU towns and cities7 © Genexis BV
  8. 8. Network infrastructure• Considerations ‣ GPON, PTP Ethernet, EPON, WDM PON, RFOG, VDSL, DOCSIS 3.0, ... ‣ Power consumption and density in POP ‣ Leap-frog bandwidth with larger upfront investment vs incremental bandwidth steps with recurring investments ‣ Symmetric vs asymmetric networks ‣ Operational ease vs larger complexity in order to support “legacy” equipment• Deployment examples ‣ Deutsche Telekom (“incumbent”) deploys GPON to reduce active equipment in the field ‣ UPC (“cable operator”) deploys DOCSIS 3.0, making more incremental capex steps ‣ KPN (“incumbent”) deploys PTP Ethernet for ease of operations and ability to combine wholesale and retail offerings ‣ Altibox (“newer operator”) deploys PTP Ethernet enabling multiple service providers8 © Genexis BV
  9. 9. Opening FTTH networks Utopia vs Reality Service Service Service Fiber access Partnership model Active Active Active Bitstream access network network network Passive Passive Passive network network network Network Closed Realistic Open elements model model model9 © Genexis BV
  10. 10. Partnership model A pragmatic open network • Let everyone play his/her role ‣ Fiber deployment requires specific types of investors ‣ Active network operations requires high-level of knowledge to make the right decisions in terms of technology and network design ‣ The active network operator has a very strange position: while he depends on the investor to supply the passive infrastructure, he is also dependent on the service provider to make money ‣ It’s unrealistic to believe that 10 service providers will magically appear once the network it is operational • Deployment example: The “Dutch” model ‣ Reggefiber invests in fiber and operates the passive network ‣ KPN rents the fiber and take the roles of active operator and service provider ‣ Reggefiber also operates its own active network and rents the connectivity to Vodafone and a few smaller providers10 © Genexis BV
  11. 11. Opening FTTH networks • Conclusion: There is no one model that meets all requirements ‣ Technologies each have there own quirks ‣ Incumbents come from a very different position than newer operators ‣ The expertise of the operator will determine which role or roles he is likely to take ‣ Forming partnerships along the open model “axis” is a strong step in the right direction Open networks are not about achieving some ideal model, but about attracting users to the digital highway and changing our society into a more sustainable one11 © Genexis BV
  12. 12. Attracting the user Don’t tell me the users are not interested in new services HD content, 3D-TV, e-health, teleworking, gaming, smart energy, ambient intelligence, cloud computing domotica, security, education, knowledge ... and more! If you offer them in the right way and market them the right way, then the user will even pay for them! Thank you!12 © Genexis BV