I personally believe that fiber optic, just like the electricity network, would be better provided by a separate party that then provides it as a service to the providers. That would suddenly solve the duopoly problem because there will be more providers who are not/should not be thwarted.
In itself it would be a good move to simply attract external investors, but not like Telenet where the entire store is in the hands of American investors. Something like that should simply remain national or European
To look at those mast networks on topic: there are 2 scenarios: a mast company that provides installation points for all providers, but which also contributes to the development of the network, etc. In South Africa you have more or less this situation. The result is that all providers have virtually the same coverage. That doesn’t seem desirable to me. And thus the disadvantage of 1 company or provider per network/mast park.
Option 2 is to transfer a large number of fixed locations (for example masts on so-called “greenfield sites”) to another party and also to negotiate with owners of high buildings to establish installation points there. Then you are more flexible.
Previously you had an argument that other parties were not allowed on each other’s masts. Then suddenly there were 2 masts next to each other. After that, only existing providers Libertel (Vodafone) and KPN shared masts to try to gain an advantage over the newcomers. This usually does not apply to 1 party that buys up the masts. If the mast can handle it, another one is added as desired.
And then about the glass thing and the demand for only 1 provider:
This is already almost the case: KPN installs a lot of fiber infrastructure and then other providers can choose whether they install fiber in that area themselves or whether they piggyback on KPN’s fiber optic for a (hefty) payment.
It almost seems as if people think that a government would do it cheaper as a NUTS provision. Well that chance is very small. If there were 1 company or government agency, it would have only 1 task: raising more money every year for the government (to close gaps in the budget) or for the shareholders if it is a commercial party.
Now KPN is a commercial party as a fiber optic provider. And clearly the current price for use is not yet high enough to justify the installation of their own fiber optic by the providers that currently use KPN. Of course, these are very large investments that must first be recouped.
I can imagine that it would ultimately be more attractive for a party like Odido, for example, to install glass themselves in a neighborhood with many Ododo customers instead of continuing to run it over the KPN network. At the moment that doesn’t seem to be happening at all. They are now first fighting over zip codes where they want to be the first network provider. And if they are the first, then suddenly the other parties no longer come.
[Reactie gewijzigd door ucsdcom op 22 november 2024 13:34]
The Fiber Optic Fiasco: A Comedy of Errors in Connectivity
I personally believe that fiber optic, just like the electricity network, would be better provided by a separate party that then provides it as a service to the providers. That would suddenly solve the duopoly problem because there will be more providers who are not/should not be thwarted.
In itself it would be a good move to simply attract external investors, but not like Telenet where the entire store is in the hands of American investors. Something like that should simply remain national or European.
Oh, the Connectivity Irony!
Now, who doesn’t love a good conspiracy theory? Here we are, discussing a fiber optic future that’s as tangled up as my earphones after a long day at work! The notion that fiber optics should be treated like electricity is simply electrifying—pun absolutely intended. Imagine a world where one clean party lays down the cables for all providers. The telecom duopoly? A thing of the past! Sounds like utopia, doesn’t it? But hold on to your cables!
As Flexible As a Yoga Instructor
To look at those mast networks on topic: there are 2 scenarios: a mast company that provides installation points for all providers, but which also contributes to the development of the network, etc. In South Africa you have more or less this situation. The result is that all providers have virtually the same coverage. That doesn’t seem desirable to me. And thus the disadvantage of 1 company or provider per network/mast park.
We’ve got two options: either we have a mast company, which I envision as a truly dedicated telecom Tinder, matching providers with installation points. Or we could send providers off on a scavenger hunt for high buildings like it’s an urban Fort Knox! But let’s be honest: having all providers sharing masts sounds like a recipe for a sitcom—lots of confusion, a few misunderstandings, and inevitably, the Network Provider Who Loved Me.
The Great Marketplace Debate
Previously you had an argument that other parties were not allowed on each other’s masts. Then suddenly there were 2 masts next to each other…
Ah yes, the classic “not allowed on my turf” dilemma. It’s like the ‘he said, she said’ of the telecom world. One minute you’re cozying up to a competitor sharing masts, and the next you’re staring at two identical towers, wondering if you accidentally walked into an optical illusion! Meanwhile, we’re all here playing a game of musical chairs, and God forbid you don’t grab a seat when the music stops.
The Glass Is Half Full… or Is It?
And then about the glass thing and the demand for only 1 provider: This is already almost the case: KPN installs a lot of fiber infrastructure and then other providers can choose whether they install fiber in that area themselves or whether they piggyback on KPN’s fiber optic for a (hefty) payment.
KPN is turning into that friend who throws a great party but charges you for the drinks! “Oh, you want to use my newly installed networks? Sure, but it will cost you a small fortune!” Here’s an economy lesson: if KPN builds all the fiber and keeps all the cards, why would anyone else even bother to lay down their own? Why race when you can stroll and still leech off someone else’s hard work?
A Governmental Glitch
I can imagine that it would ultimately be more attractive for a party like Odido, for example, to install glass themselves in a neighborhood with many Odido customers instead of continuing to run it over the KPN network.
Imagine if government stepped in as the “one provider to rule them all!” It would be like handing a toddler a bag of candy—everyone would be smiling until someone knocks over the bag and chaos ensues. Service might become as cheap and cheerful as a discount bin at a thrift store, but with all the charm of a tax audit. Remember, there’s a reason we love competition: because nobody wants to be stuck with the last slice of cold pizza!
Wrap-Up: Fiber Optic Futures
In summary, the fiber optics landscape is nothing short of a tightrope walk where companies are just trying not to fall off and hope to win the grand prize of customer loyalty. Whether it’s one provider conquering all or a vibrant marketplace where everyone shares, remember: we all just want to binge-watch our shows without buffering like some 90s relic. So here’s to the future—may it be bright, fast, and as entertaining as watching Lee Evans at his best!
I am convinced that, similar to the electricity infrastructure, fiber optic networks would be far more effectively managed by an independent entity that offers its services to various telecommunications providers. This innovative model could effectively eliminate the current duopoly in the market, paving the way for a multitude of service providers who would be able to operate without interference.
While attracting external investment is generally advantageous, it’s crucial that we avoid scenarios like that of Telenet, where the entire business is dominated by American investors. It would be far more beneficial for these networks to remain under national or European ownership.
To dive deeper into the concept of mast networks, we can consider two distinct scenarios: the first involves a mast company that serves as an installation point for all providers while actively participating in network development. South Africa’s experience illustrates a similar setup, where virtually all providers boast equivalent coverage, a situation I find less than desirable. This approach inherently creates the issue of having only one operator managing the entire network or mast infrastructure.
The second scenario involves transferring a significant number of fixed locations, such as masts situated on “greenfield sites,” to a separate entity. This would necessitate negotiating with the owners of tall buildings to establish additional installation sites. Such a strategy offers far greater flexibility.
In previous discussions, concerns were raised over prohibiting other companies from sharing mast facilities. This resulted in the unusual occurrence of two masts being placed side by side in certain areas. Eventually, existing providers like Libertel (Vodafone) and KPN began sharing their masts in an effort to secure a competitive edge over newer entrants into the market. Typically, this does not apply when a single company attempts to monopolize the masts; rather, if a mast has the capacity, additional installations can be added according to demand.
Now addressing the topic of fiber optics and the inclination for a singular provider:
We are nearing this reality: KPN has been rapidly expanding its fiber infrastructure, granting other providers the option to either build their own networks in specific areas or to utilize KPN’s existing fiber optic network for a substantial fee.
There seems to be a prevalent belief that a government-run service would provide these networks at a lower cost simply because it is a public utility. However, this assumption is largely unfounded. Should there be a single corporate entity, whether governmental or private, their primary goal would be to generate increasing revenue annually, whether to address budget deficits or to satisfy shareholder expectations.
KPN operates as a commercial entity within the fiber optic space. At present, the pricing structure for using their infrastructure appears insufficient for other providers to justify the significant investment needed to lay their own fiber optic lines. These undertakings require enormous upfront capital, which must be recovered over time.
It’s plausible that a company like Odido may ultimately find it more appealing to install its own fiber in neighborhoods with a high concentration of its customers rather than continuing to rely on KPN’s infrastructure. Currently, this trend is not apparent; these companies seem more focused on competing for initial market presence in select zip codes. Once one provider establishes itself, the likelihood of others entering that market diminishes dramatically.
[Reactie gewijzigd door ucsdcom op 22 november 2024 13:34]
