Xelerated Xpress

How Much Bandwidth Do We Need?

How much bandwidth we really need is one of the critical questions service providers and policy makers around the world ask themselves as they stimulate and start to invest in Next Generation Access infrastructure. About a decade ago, migrating from dial-up to DSL and cable opened up for the Web and P2P applications. Moving next to fiber will lead to a far more reliable and dynamic digital society, with a range of consumer video applications driving the need for speed.

It’s always hard to imagine the uptake and requirements for future services. By its very nature, the future is unpredictable. Will HDTV take off? Will consumers ever want to narrate their own interactive movies in high definition? Or will they rather just lay back in the sofa and watch IPTV on the big-screen TV? The answers to these questions will have strong traffic planning implications.

Let’s look at what others are predicting. The FTTH council has compiled a list of broadband forecasts  in a response to an inquiry about the U.S. National Broadband Plan:

• Heavy Reading concludes that households will need 100 Mbps downstream (actual delivered throughput) by 2015.
• Bain & Co’s estimates the average U.S. household will require 30+ Mbps of download bandwidth, but points out that this requirement will move up to 100 Mbps over time.
• Motorola mirrors Bain & Co estimates. Within seven years, service providers need to plan for this figure to top 100 Mbps of actual throughput.

It looks like the industry will broadly accept the 100 Mbps target. How to measure the success, however, is likely to differ. Additionally, when looking at historic growth in broadband bandwidth, 100 Mbps is a reasonable goal for the next 5-10 years. The Swedish Government is aiming for this in its national broadband plan. The objective is to have 40% of Swedish housholds and companies connected at 100 Mbps by 2015, and 90% in 2020. Aggressive? Yes. Probable? Why not?

by Per Lembre on Dec. 23rd, 2009

| Comment

The Net Neutrality Debate is Only Half

Having spent time both in the U.S. and in Europe, I believe the U.S. focused net neutrality debate tends to miss an important point. Net neutrality and open-based access models are interlinked. In the U.S., the debate centers around how to ensure equal and transparent treatment of services by the access providers. In Europe, the regulatory discussion is focused more on how the access player’s competition can be ensured in the long run.

Today EU is endorsing an open-based access model in an attempt to get more “fair” access to the local loop and Central Office spaces typically owned by the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC).  The idea is to avoid the problem experienced in the copper-based world with a monopoly organization owning a key public infrastructure resource, and thereby defining the rules for competition with implications both on network services, prices and pace of service innovations. Without sound regulations, alternate multiplay service providers, CLECs, utilities companies, and municipalities would have been effectively locked out to offer broadband services on competitive grounds.

The U.S. is a country where free trade and strong competition are well recognized. The way the regulatory discussion in the U.S. is moving forward, it is limited to content and service transparency and equal treatment. The goal is to limit service providers’ freedom to filter and downgrade user experiences on applications like Peer-to-Peer download. This is an important dimension but I think ultimately customers will leave if the services beeing offered have too poor quality. That is, if there are competitive players around for the consumers to select from. In competitive markets, access service providers who have tried to downgrade user experiences on specific network services have faced strong churn and the brands have taken serious hits in the media as well.

To be effective, broadband stimulus should couple net neutrality with defined rules for open-based access. There are many real world cases where this model has successfully stimulated sound competition.  If done right, competition will be healthy both on services being offered and for the access to the local loop and Central Office space footprint. This drives down price and increases the pace of innovation, pushing vendors and service providers alike to bring better technologies and services to market, all to the benefit of the consumer.

While the debates and the strengths of the different players vary between the U.S. and the European Union, both continents face similar challenges, and can learn from each other. Now is a good time to push for open-based access models and net neutrality. Broadband stimulus may add the necessary extra incentive to increase competition and avoid the new fiber access infrastructures currently being deployed from being locked into monopolies.

by Thomas Eklund on Nov. 5th, 2009

| Comment

Open Access Gaining Attention

With the broadband stimulus debate, the regulatory framwork for future unbundling of fiber access is heating up. Xelerated’s VP of Marketing, Thomas Eklund, made a comment on this at xchange magazine today. Unstrung has started to track service provider take ups to the US government broadband stimulus packages. And today, ECI Telecom announced support for open access in their Multiservice Access Node for GPON deployments.

Investments horizons are long, and there is a need to build trust and long-term commitments to the regulatory framwork for this industry. In the mean time it makes sense to design networks and platforms with programmable software and hardware, enabling alignment to different operational models. ECI is doing the right thing!

It will be interesting to watch service provider statements on this topic.

by Per Lembre on Sep. 10th, 2009

| Comment