Chapter 5: Our alternative vision:
final considerations
237. In this report, we have made a number of
recommendations which the Government and industry could act on
immediately. As we have suggested throughout, their implementation
could have a profound effect on the roll-out of broadband infrastructure
in the short term—and have the effect of bringing the current
approach closer to the alternative vision we outlined in Chapter
3. As noted, however, it has been useful within the context of
this report to continue to refer to our vision and the open access
fibre-optic hub idea which it informs, as an entirely alternative
proposal. We also hope that doing so might lend our proposal greater
clarity in its role as stimulus to future policy makers in this
area. We are aware, for example, that a further £300 million
may be available for investment in broadband infrastructure in
the new Parliament up to 2017.[120]
238. In presenting a more in depth picture of
our alternative proposal, we do not pretend that what follows
is comprehensive. It simply proposes to give a clearer impression
of what we have in mind and should answer some, if not all, of
the questions which may naturally have arisen from the outline
we have provided of our alternative approach so far. From that
point, it will be for others, as they see fit, to elaborate further
and to incorporate into their thinking as many of these ideas
as may be useful.
An alternative direction for
broadband policy
239. To reiterate, our vision is of a robust
and resilient national network linked primarily by optical connectivity,
bringing open access fibre-optic hubs within reach of every community.
This would allow diverse providers, large and small, to contribute
to the reach and resilience of our national connectivity and allow
all individuals to benefit from whichever services, including
public ones, will run over it in time to come.
240. To realise this vision, we believe a reorientation
is required in Government policy away from the absolute edges
of the network and towards that part of it which brings fibre-optic
closer into communities. Conventionally this part of the network
is referred to as the 'middle mile.' However, as fibre is laid
deeper into the network, to terminate in open access fibre-optic
hubs, it will be possible—desirable, even—for networks,
to be extended on further from these points to still further outlying
hubs, and so on. To build in the redundancy and resilience we
described in Chapter 3, it will be equally desirable for these
hubs themselves to become inter-connected. Over time, therefore,
we envisage a network in which the boundaries between the middle
mile and the local access network increasingly dissolve, and the
entire system may take on characteristics, less of a rigid hierarchy,
and more of a living organism—an ever growing and ever more
interwoven web.
241. In the first instance, what will be required
is to establish open access fibre-optic hubs that reach deep into
every community. The hubs themselves will need to be specified,
and the detail of this, we leave to others. However, we can say
now that they are likely to vary greatly. In some circumstances,
cabinets will provide much of what is needed—accommodation
for passive connections, splices and splitters. If the hubs serve
masts, for example, these may need to be adjacent, or may be some
distance away, but all that is needed from the cabinet is a fibre
connection; power can be supplied separately. What will be needed
in addition, however, is open access to any relevant links at
the exchange as this will then be where the necessary active equipment
is installed. In some parts of the country, it may even be more
sensible to establish new hubs from scratch with space and power
for active equipment themselves. These would then play a role
more akin to an exchange, and would accordingly need to be specified
differently. They would need to be reliably inter-connected and
given the space required for the installation of active equipment,
would inevitably be larger, certainly larger than a cabinet tends
to, or even—in urban areas—can be. In these cases,
therefore, public spaces such as schools and libraries may provide
a sensible location, not least because they have the advantage
of a presence in most communities.
242. Clearly a more detailed specification of
open access fibre-optic hubs would eventually be required. At
this stage, however, our intention is only to provide a clearer
impression of the alternative direction for broadband policy we
have advocated throughout this report. As such, we reiterate that
in fact, despite having set off in a different direction without—in
our view—having asked proper questions about where policy
should take the UK's broadband infrastructure, the Government's
approach could to an extent be brought closer in line with ours
by virtue of a number of measures at its and the regulator's disposal.
243. Ofcom should consider employing its Article
12 powers to oblige infrastructure owners to provide open access
to dark fibre at the level of the cabinet, and active and passive
access, together with rights to install and collocate active equipment
on relevant links at the level of the exchanges and other nodes.
244. As discussed in Chapter 3, we note that
there are indications that access to dark fibre has been suggested
by the European Commission among a set of conditions for the umbrella
state aid permission BDUK are seeking for projects operating within
its Framework.
245. We also noted in Chapter 3 that under the
right conditions, we anticipate the emergence of a new industry
of infrastructure providers in the final mile who will be able
to respond to local demand and compete effectively with their
national cousins to build out local access networks accordingly.
We also suggested that this is not simply a vain hope, and that
there are an increasing number of such businesses thriving in
areas of the UK where open access to backhaul can be secured.
Among these are, for example, WiSpire—a joint venture between
the Diocese of Norwich and Freeclix, a local ISP—and the
Tegola network in the Scottish Highlands. In both cases a significant
degree of success has been achieved in bringing connectivity to
rural or remote communities at reasonably low cost by using wireless
technologies for the final drop. In Norwich, backhaul is provided
by Freeclix, transmitting connectivity wirelessly to a mast on
Norwich Cathedral, from where the signal is distributed further
to masts on churches elsewhere in the Diocese, and then finally
onto homes and businesses themselves. In the case of the Tegola
network, Professor Peter Buneman FRS outlined a similar approach
had been taken in the Scottish Highlands. As he put it to us:
"The only technical obstacle to the development of more of
these access networks is the lack of backhaul."[121]
246. Additionally, as noted in chapter 4, we
have made a firm recommendation to Ofcom to encourage, and consider
mandating open industry-led standards, which among other things,
would specify the systems interfaces between infrastructure and
service providers. This would have a significant impact on the
ability of prospective network owners to attract ISPs onto their
networks as it would provide a single open standard that could
be implemented by any infrastructure provider and eliminate the
prohibitive administrative burden for an ISP of having to deal
with a proliferating array of interfaces.
247. A large ISP will still be reluctant to deal
with, and rely on, a large number of small and disparate infrastructure
providers. One way of resolving this issue lies in the virtual
aggregation of networks into larger units. If an ISP interacts
not with the network owner itself, but a management organisation
acting as an intermediary between them, this would to a significant
extent avert the problem. We would, therefore, urge the industry
to work to ensure there is such an organisation, and that it is
fit for purpose. We are aware, for example, that INCA, the Independent
Networks Cooperative Association, may be able to act in this capacity.
248. We urge the industry to work to ensure
there is an organisation with the capacity to act as an intermediary
between an array of separate network providers and larger-scale
ISPs. We note that the existence and effectiveness of such an
organisation would be vital to the success of an open access fibre-optic
hub model.
Long-term considerations
249. We note with interest that one effect of
the open access fibre-optic hub idea that we are promoting may
be to alter the conceptual framework for the final mile. Currently,
most people's conception of broadband infrastructure derives from
their conception of the telephone network or other utilities whose
termination point is at the curtilage of the household, after
which ownership of the network is taken over by the owner of the
premises. An alternative way of thinking about the network might
be that broadband roll-out has more in common with the railways:
the traveller has to get him/herself to the station and once there
the train takes the strain. In other words, the open access fibre-optic
hub model makes it possible for individual property owners to
build out the access network themselves, or at least have it built
for them. In fact, this may be less radical than it sounds, given
that, after all, the UK's general model of utility provision is
not comprehensive in any case: property owners already need to
supply their own hardware, interfaces, taps and so on. A similar
idea was sketched by Francesco Caio:
"One alternative way of thinking of ownership
structure is if the network is what I would define as the home
with a tail, that is the household owns the last bit of fibre.
Instead of having competition among suppliers to serve those homes,
the ones you have somehow captured because services and the networks
are together, you might think of a reverse model where you have
the household auctioning the ability to connect with the backhaul
and to the network, and then I, as a household, choose the services
I want because I do not need the network provider to be the service
provider."[122]
250. The Government should consider, not least
in light of the EU Commission's current consultation and the issues
this raises concerning open access to dark fibre as a condition
of State Aid, what the implications might be for broadband policy
of a new 'house with a tail' model emerging in which the property
owner becomes responsible for the construction and maintenance
of their own final drop.
251. This report began by noting that copper
technology, first used for the 19th century telegraph, is no longer
fit for purpose as the capacity of all but the shortest copper
telephone connections is now being exceeded by demand for more
data-intensive applications. Having considered a UK communications
infrastructure beyond copper, it occurs to us that as the roll-out
of fibre continues, capacity will increase, as will the appeal
and number of services that rely on it. As such, a new digital
divide may emerge between those with respectable and those with
elite connectivity, separating those who can access what will
in some cases be critical public services or public interest content
from those who cannot. As a result, just as with digital switchover,
a time may come when it is appropriate for the Government to mandate
a form of Universal Service Obligation in the shape of a similar
measure which might be called fibre switch over.
252. We recommend that consideration should
be given over time by the Government, Ofcom and the industry as
to when and under what conditions fibre switchover would be appropriate
and what implications it would have.
120 DCMS, Broadband delivery programme: Delivery
model, September 2011. Available online: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/BDUK-Programme-Delivery-Model-vs1-01.pdf Back
121
Peter Buneman Back
122
Q 125 Back
|
