U.K. House of Lords Proposes "Radical" Change in Broadband Policy

With the caveat that government reports are not policy, and that many such efforts have no ability to affect changes in policy, a report by the Select Committee on Communications of the U.K. House of Lords does suggest some potential new ways to structure the upgrade of the U.K. fixed network. Whether it is feasible or not remains to be seen.

Indeed, critics might say it is financially unworkable. It might arguably be politically unworkable. But it is different. Basically, the study suggests focusing fiber upgrades on the middle mile of the network, deploying new wholesale fiber to “open access hubs” within reach of every community, says the study by the U.K. House of Lords.

The idea is to encourage multiple providers to connect to the “hubs” to provide local access. That is not architecturally so different from what planners originally have proposed. There has been general agreement on extending fiber to cabinets, where it is not feasible to run fiber all the way to each premises.


What is different is the degree of wholesale network access points, and the way the access network is owned and paid for. Among the provisions with the greatest cost implications is the notion that perhaps end users should build and own more of the access plant.


Engineers immediately will grasp the cost implications. Service providers will immediately grasp the competitive implications.

The open access fiber optic hub “refers to a physical object—in all likelihood a box—situated in the vicinity of a community,” the report says. “Its job is to act as a way station between that community and the broadband infrastructure that spreads out across the rest of the country,” the report says.

Engineers immediately will wonder whether the hubs are equivalent to “central office” locations, or are positioned deeper in the distribution network. The report does not make that distinction unmistakably clear, though one assumes the hubs generally will be deeper in the access network than a central office.

Running into the hub from the wider network would be an ample number of “dark” fiberoptic cables, available on an “open access” basis. Retailers would then build local access networks of their own, between customer locations and the hubs.

Engineers will see some pitfalls. As a rule of thumb, it is precisely the local access portion of the network that drives half of the total cost of a fixed line network. That generally includes all plant between a central office and the actual customer.

The House of Lords report might include fiber pulled much closer to the customer, in which case the access portion of the plant that any competitor might have to supply could represent less investment than generally has been required.

One analogy might be the “fiber to node” designs used by cable operators, which position the termination of the fiber network at a point where 500 to 1,000 homes are served. Perhaps an open access hub is comparable to a fiber node, in a cable TV sense.

What is unclear is whether the report envisions the hubs to be the equivalent of passive optical network locations, which feed perhaps 30 to 100 homes or locations. There are serious cost implications to using either of those wholesale termination points.

Most potential competitors will find the costs of building their own local access all the way from any customer back to the central office. Many more would find the prospect of building only to a hub serving 30 to 100 locations much more palatable.

There are some physical issues, either way. Availability of underground duct facilities or space on aerial poles will put limits on the number of competitors that actually could build new facilities to reach a hub, much less a central office location.

The study also suggests a potentially different way of looking at connection costs, though. “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.”

In other words, the provider’s network stops at the side of the house. The study says a different approach would entail the customer owning more of the drop and access network.

“An alternative way of thinking about the network might be that broadband rollout has more in common with the railways: the traveller has to get him/herself to the station and once there the train takes the train,” the report says.

The open access fibre-optic hub model would make it possible for individual property owners to build out the access network themselves, or at least have it built for them.

Marketers immediately will object that most users will be quite unwilling to undertake such investments themselves.

One alternative way of thinking of ownership structure is if the network is “a home with a tail,” where the household owns the last bit of fiber.”

Instead of having competition among suppliers to serve those homes,  a reverse model would have a household auctioning the ability to connect with the backhaul and to the network.

That likely would be a harder sale than many suspect, as it could entail customers spending $500 or more to reach a neighborhood cabinet.

While providing an eventual upgrade path to fiber to home, the study also recommends placement of optical splitters at a central office location, presumably thereby allowing competitors to lease an entire access network, rather than building their own.

In any event, the study argues that “a reorientation is required in government policy away from the absolute edges of the network and towards that part of it which brings optical network closer into communities.” For some, that might mean funding the “middle mile,” but that arguably is less accurate than saying the report recommends funding open access facilities deeper into the access network, with unbundling at a level where any retail competitor has to supply a link from any location back to an optical hub serving 30 to 100 locations.

Whether the report will have an impact is perhaps highly questionable. Aside from some potential BT objections, and possibly some BT support, there are highly uncertain cost implications for retail competitors, as well as revenue implications if wholesale network access locations make it easier for competitors to enter markets on a facilities-based basis.