The European Commission has finally published its draft “Guidelines for the application of State Aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks” for consultation (pdf downloadable EC_NGA_guidelines_en.pdf).
As always, there are 2 views and souls competing with each other within the EC. On one hand you have people who try to prevent terribly ineffective and expensive protectionists measures by states who pour money into badly run companies, on the other hand you have people who are fed up with the monopolistic attitude of (many) large telecom companies and want to get them moving in badly needed rollouts of next generation networks to all parts of the EU.
The dichotomy is visible in the draft guidelines. There are some openings (like definition of White, Grey and Black areas, ackowledgement that yesterdays broadband may be tomorrows narrowband and cannot be compared, acknowledgement of the roles backhaul and topology play in unbundling and open access) but they are “compensated” by restrictions and definitions.
The devil is the detail. Next Generation Networks (NGA’s) are defined as:
a NGA network is further defined as involving:
(i) laying fibre to existing street cabinets offering the
prospects of downstream bandwidths of a minimum of 40 Mbps and 15 Mbps
upstream (compared with today’s downstream speeds of a maximum of 8 and 24
Mbps for ADSL and ADSL2+ access technologies, respectively); (ii) upgrading
current cable networks to deliver speeds up to and beyond 50 Mbps against the
previous maximum speed of 20 Mbps, using the new ‘DOCSIS 3.0′ cable modem
standard, or (iii) connecting newly built homes and offices with fibre connections
offering services up to 100 Mbps and beyond.44
Interesting: FttH to existing homes and offices is excluded in the definition? Some reality gap over there? Docsis is mentioned as a specific technology without any upload spec, VDSL is specified. with upload? If you start to specify technology, why leave out the inherent capability of cable and fiber to support an RF overlay (for analog or DVB TV?).
What happened to technology agnostic specifications? The worst mistakes arise from laymen trying to specifcy technology.
The most glaring “compensation” is the impossible burden of proof that is introduced.
… for the purposes of assessing state aid for NGA networks, an area where such networks do not at present exist and where they are not likely to be built and be fully operational in the near future by private investors should be considered to be a “white NGA” area. In that regard, the term ‘in the near future’ should correspond to a period of [5] years.
The renowned Science philosopher Dr Karl Popper has introduced the concept of the falsification. It is usually impossible to proof the positive argument (one can go on forever supplying proof that the test is true), it is much easier to falsify a hypothesis : you need only one proof of the falsification (hypothesis is false) to proof the hypothesis is wrong.
The EC takes the opposite approach, creating an impossible burden of proof on governments where companies do not have to proof an intention to roll out to create a blockade.
If an operator claims a roll-out in the next 5 years (on paper) it blocks any initiative from a (local) government. If after 2-3 years “unforeseen” circumstances appear which “force the operator to delay investments” the cycle starts again: the government has to prove that the operator will not roll out in 5 years FROM THAT MOMENT ON, which the operator can easily claim on paper that he will do.
This is effectively a free (no obligation, no costs, no commitment) blocking trigger which can be used by any operator almost indefinitely to block any initiative from a municipality or government. Very lopsided. A enforceable burden/commitment of the operator to roll out if they want to excercise the blockade would have been more balanced.
What a difference with other bold and audacious initiatives such as the Singapore NGA investments, or the Australian NGA plan to force the roll out of a fiber network all over the country.
About Herman
Herman Wagter is one of the founders and co-editor of Dadamotive. His work as interim manager and consultant (Citynet Amsterdam/Fiber-to-the-Home, Platform Sustainable Mobility) has involved him directly in the impact of hyperconnectivity and sustainability on society. As an independent agent and "mobile warrior" he has experienced the pro's and con's of how organizations and projects can be structured, and what the effects on the final result can be. In his opinion we are entering an era of profound change, driven by these fundamental forces. Following the trends, discovering the fun and debunking the half-truths is a passion he likes to share with others.
Nice article. These twin ideologies were very evident in pushing the Telecoms package into a third reading. You had Malcom Harbour MEP wishing competitive forces alone would determine the nature of our internet services, with consumer protection confined to the small print of your contract. On the other hand we had Parliament supporting internet access as a universal human right. There needs to be something which ensures that legacy voice (mobile and fixed)termination regimes get re-written as part of the NGN/NGA investment.