The final version of the EU Guidelines on State Aid for broadband projects (see over here) is only slightly different from the Draft Guidelines published some months ago (see my comments). The quite difficult burden of proof "that there are no plans by operators" is still there, with some added guidelines. Benoit Felten calls them the Incentive Paradox Guidelines.
It remains to be seen how this will play out in practice.
The gem is hidden in the last paragraphs. A definition of a technology neutral infrastructure has been adopted.
In addition, whatever the type of the NGA network architecture that will benefit from State aid, it should support effective and full unbundling and satisfy all different types of network access that operators may seek (including but not limited to access to ducts, fibre and bitstream). In this respect it should be noted that "multiple fibre" architecture allows full independence between access seekers to provide high-speed broadband offers and is therefore conducive to long-term sustainable competition. In addition, the deployment of NGA networks based on multiple fibre lines supports both "point-to-point" and "pointto-multipoint" topologies and is therefore technology neutral. [ bold added later ]
Since 2008 I have been presenting the view that topology matters. You can build a topology that is specific for a technology, or design one that can support many technologies. A technology neutral topology. See the image below for an explanation.
This is not theory but practice, as shown by ECFiber and Burlington Telecom in the USA (courtesy Timothy Nulty).
"In our approach, every premise is "home-runned" to a "fiber aggregation point (FAP) " which is an actual building--with power, HVAC, light, security etc. Anything up to 4000 or so subs. can home in on one such FAP, or "remote hub"....(which are trunkedback to the main hub--and to each other--using carrier grade 10G/40G-E systems). All electronics are in the FAPs--where they can be both easily maintained/repaired AND replaced--incrementally or entirely, as desired. You can patch past the splitters and provide mega-circuits if you want to (dedicated Terrabit circuit, anyone?). You can replace specific customer OLT's with something else (later vintage PON, customized active elements etc)--in small batches or all at once. In fact, you can do most anything you want--including change out the whole system. You can do all these things without ever touching the main infrastructure and main cost item--the fiber distribution network itself. The fact that there are NO stategic (let alone active) components in the field not only greatly improves maintenance (ease and cost) but also increases the ease and efficiency of upgrading/changing/migrating AND inserting other signals should that be desired."
The Guidelines as published by the EC show that this very significant insight has been understood and adopted in Brussels.
Leave a comment