OPEN ACCESS NETWORK MODELS
Part 3 of a series written by Mathers Farr
When people in the broadband industry hear the term ‘Open Access’, many of them immediately think of a specific model that they have had an encounter with and make a judgement – good or bad. The term is not well defined in the trade, and over the years it has been used rather loosely to describe a variety of different network models that allow multiple Internet Service Providers access to a common fiber infrastructure to deliver services. The shared infrastructure portion can vary from middle mile spans to a rural town, to carrying an ISP right inside the walls of a service location.
OA Purpose: In all cases, the Open Access model is intended to create economies and efficiencies in the access network so that multiple overbuilt fiber routes are not needed to access the same subscribers. All Open Access models are also intended to level the pricing playing field and promote competition among ISPs for services. Ironically, many providers oppose open access because they prefer exclusive access and monopolistic pricing over economy, efficiency, and competition. Also ironically, ISPs often argue that Open Access is a socialist system that replaces private enterprise with government controls. In reality, Open Access models unlock monopolies and open markets to a more capitalistic forum where providers must compete on a public platform by providing superior service, pricing, and quality in their product offerings. Usually, the biggest opponents to Open Access are the providers who know they won’t perform well against potential competitors that are given equal access to their previously exclusive markets.
OA Models: When analyzing the over 650 different open access networks nationwide, one begins to realize that there is no standard ‘one model fits all’ network. In fact, there is not even an Open Access subtype that is commonly shared through the Open Access Community. It seems that Open Access models are as unique as the communities for which they are deployed. The greatest beauty of the OA system is customizability. OA models have an unlimited ability to stretch and form around the specific needs and objectives of the community. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t barriers and limitations of the models, but OA has the flexibility to weave through and around a variety of constraints.
The evolution of a particular community’s OA model is going to depend on some inherent conditions and attributes of the community. Some of these conditions and attributes are fixed and some are alterable, but all must be considered in molding an Open Access model to achieve the objectives of the community. Rather than try to classify OA models into types and subtypes, it makes more sense to describe some of the defining options that communities have in customizing their Open Access model.
Model Options: The list of descriptions below is by no means comprehensive but is meant to identify some of the major considerations of the shape that a community’s OA model might take.
1. Infrastructure Funding – Building a fiber optic infrastructure is not cheap or easy. Municipal owned infrastructure can be funded in a variety or combination of ways, including Grant Programs, Bonding, Local Taxing Districts, Private Loans, Budget Allocations, or Provider / Operator Partnering agreements. The type of funding, and more importantly, potential payback of funding, will determine the fees charged to providers or subscribers to access the OA network.
2. Ownership – Who will own the infrastructure? Will it be a Municipal organization like a City or County Government entity? State or local laws may not allow municipal governments to operate this type of ‘utility’ (ordinances and interpretations are often unclear in the OA realm). Many Communities create a non-profit organization to differentiate it from the Municipal government. This can be done in a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) or Coalitions between multiple community governments, Non Proffit’s and Private entities.
3. Operation – Will the owning organization hire employees and purchase tools and equipment to operate the network ‘in-house’? Many smaller communities don’t have the resources for this and elect to contract the operation and maintenance out to private organizations. Others have created an NPO for operations while still maintaining ownership under the municipal government. The operational costs are generally funded by access and lease fees from providers or subscribers
4. Retailer – Who will sell services to end user, including marketing, billing, contracting, etc. Most OA models leave this up to the participating providers, but some infrastructure owners or operators have taken the initiative of ‘selling’ the OA concept to the public and even managing the system in a way that allows the owner / operator to manage the subscriber’s provider selection, data plans, and even billing for services. Specific software has been developed in the industry to help owners / operators in managing this if desired.
5. Subscriber Interface – Some OA models use an automated software interface that allows subscribers to select / change a provider and data plan by connecting a computer to a gateway device right from their home. In this model, the network owner / operator owns and installs the Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) in the services locations. Alternatively, the owner may lease a fiber path to a provider to get to the service location and then leaves it up to the provider to install their own CPE and manage the subscriber account. The former method usually results in more competition and hence, lower cost to the consumer. The later method makes changing providers more difficult and costly for the subscriber.
6. Revenue Generation – Infrastructure Owners need to be able to re-coup the costs of building the infrastructure and cover operational and network expansion costs. This is generally accomplished through reoccurring fees for either leasing individual strands of fiber to providers who want to use the network, or by billing subscribers directly for access to the OA network, or a combination of both. Other revenues can be generated by charging one-time installation / access fees, collections from taxing districts, or Co-Locations fees to providers in a central equipment office. Many greenfield developers will install facilities during development at their own expense to create ‘Open Access – fiber ready’ properties.
7. Network Management – Similar to Item 4, infrastructure owners can determine how involved they want to get in managing the digital network. Involvement can range from full management of subscribers, including selection of providers and plans, billing and collections, etc., to leaving all the management up to the providers in a dark fiber lease model. The latter does not require the owner to operate any electronic equipment or maintain a central office.
8. Reach of the OA Infrastructure – Some OA models simply provide a ‘middle mile’ backbone to bring providers into a community and then let the providers build and own the ‘last mile’ routes to the subscriber locations. Other models will build infrastructure to the curb (or street) near the service location then let the providers build and own the drop to the structure. Yet other models will build the OA infrastructure all the way inside the service location. The further reaching OA networks are generally more efficient, as they will never require overbuilding or replacing facilities from one provider to another.
9. OSP Architecture – The way the infrastructure is designed and built can make a big difference in how the internet services are delivered and managed. Open Access networks can be adapted to run on Active E (PTP), PON, Distributive Split, Independent Overlay Networks (ION) or almost any other network architectures. However, understanding the needs of participating providers, operators, and the pros and cons of different architectures will help determine which designs will work best for the community.
10. Community Support – Probably the most important factor of all is the commitment and enthusiasm from a community (especially community leaders) to carry out an Open Access fiber project. These projects take a great deal of time, effort, and dedication before they become a reality and begin to yield the intended benefits to the community. Most successful projects require one or more ‘Fiber Champion’ to be the spearhead in instigating and following the project through to the end. There are many free and paid resources out there to consult and assist, but without local momentum, failure is likely.
As communities work through these considerations, and others, to make decisions about their own publicly owned, Open Access endeavors, they will be able to customize a model that fits their community needs and objectives. There is no standard or classified model type and no general regulation of how to establish an Open Access network. Most organizations that are interested in OA, can reach out to neighboring cities or public organizations to see how others have molded their respective networks. Many examples are documented on the internet, and some quick searches can provide information about how various US and worldwide communities have taken the challenge of bringing more affordable, accessible and equitable internet into their communities.
Article Links for this installment:
https://blog.zcorum.com/open-access-model-for-rural-broadband-networks