Business Case Drives Platform Choices, Always

Fixed network next-generation platform choices are virtually never as “easy” as choices possible for mobile networks. For starters, mobile platform choices are always global and unitary: there is one standard to replace the prior standard. 4G is replaced by 5G as 5G will be replaced by 6G. 

In the fixed networks segment there always are multiple choices. Cable operators have multiple architecture choices when driving optical fiber deeper into the network, or can switch platforms entirely and replace hybrid fiber coax with fiber to the premises. Then there is the timetable: upgrade HFC now and then switch to FTTP later versus moving directly to FTTP. 

Fixed network operators have several choices of FTTP platform as well. Capabilities are one matter, but deployment cost; business strategy; expected financial return; capital investment and expected level of competition all are issues to be considered. 

source: Broadband Library 

When an immediate upgrade from copper is envisioned, some might argue XGS-PON is more future-proof, if more costly. But scale matters, in some instances. Capex for one choice that is four to five times that of the other relevant choice can be a powerful incentive. 

Split ratios and the number of wavelengths also might be considerations if one platform has range significantly different from other platforms. A network architect might require more wavelengths per fiber if longer distances are covered, to support dropping wavelengths along the route to serve enterprise or other high-volume customers. 

source: Medium 

In all cases, though, the business case influences platform choices. "First installed cost" is never the only consideration.

Switching Locations Lose Relevance for Network Architectures

Of all the changes in fixed or mobile network architectures over the past few decades, one of the notable physical layer changes is the application of optical fiber more densely in distribution and access networks.

But also noteworthy is the disappearance of switching or computing locations as demarcation points.

In the past, we could always demarcate the access network from the distribution network at a central office or rermote terminal location. That makes less sense these days, as processing is increasingly distributed.

Both fixed and mobile networks use similar architectures in the core network, diverging mostly in the access network. Core network transport these days always uses optical fiber media. Transport networks (sometimes known as distribution networks) that move traffic from the access network to the core network also are commonly based on optical fiber platforms. 

source: Dgtl Infra 

Access networks that move traffic from customer sites to transport aggregation points rely on different media (cable versus wireless radios). 

The other common change is that both fixed and mobile networks can be described without reference to places where processing operations occur. In virtualized and distributed networks, that can happen at many different places. 

In past days transitions between portions of the network would happen at processing locations such as central offices, which traditionally terminated the access network. These days, processing no longer is a consistent demarcation point between network segments (core, transport/distribution and access).

Covid Lockdown Productivity is an Illusion

A study by economists Robert J. Gordon and Hassan Sayed argues “the pandemic appears to have created a resurgence in productivity growth with a 4.1 percent rate achieved in the four quarters of 2020.”

In other words, while many office and retail workers were working from home, productivity accelerated, the study says. Some will take that as confirmation that work from home actually does raise productivity. 

Maybe not. “We use the data to show how severely the quarterly pattern of aggregate productivity growth is distorted in 2020 by the change of the industry mix in which low-productivity industries suffered disproportionate losses of output,” say the National Bureau of Economic Research researchers. 

To be sure, the 2020-22 average productivity growth rates of 17 industries are highly heterogeneous, ranging from +10 percent to -9 percent at an annual rate.

“To provide insight, we divide the 17 industries into three groups: goods, work-from-home (WFH) services, and contact services,” the researchers say. “We show that WFH industries account for more than all of the positive productivity growth during 2020-22.”

What must be explained is productivity growth as output plummeted. The answer appears to be that “the apparent countercyclical behavior of productivity in 2020:Q2 reflected not a sudden outburst of creative innovation, but rather in large part a shift in the mix of output and employment toward higher productivity sectors of the economy,” the authors say. 

“While output and employment dropped everywhere, they declined at a much faster rate in the sectors where labor productivity and wages are relatively low,” say Gordon and Saved. 

“This shift in the industry mix reflects a relatively large decline in the employment of workers in low-paid industries where work involves close contact among employees, customers, or both, such as bricks-and-mortar retail trade and leisure/hospitality, and a relative increase in the employment of workers who could continue to work at home in relatively high-paid industries such as finance and information technology,” they note. 

In other words, we simply subtracted low-productivity workers from the sample, leaving a higher preponderance of “high-productivity” workers in the sample. 

Leave aside for the moment the question of whether knowledge worker productivity actually can be measured. The boost in productivity documented here actually results from removing substantial portions of the low-productivity workforce from the statistics. 

So average productivity rose, even if much of the real economy was shuttered. 

The point is that we need to be careful about claims that work from home actually increased productivity. This study only confirms that lots of low-productivity employees were out of work. We actually know very little about WFH productivity effects.

What is a "Problem" and What is a "Success?" Sometimes They Get Confused

Can you name a single government program that achieves 99 percent of its goals? And if any such program achieves 99 percent of its actual numeric goal, does it make any sense to say such an outcome is not worth cheering? 

Where it comes to home broadband, if you pay attention to the actual numbers, the “unconnected” problem is a “last two percent of locations” issue, and always is. The actual size of the “cannot buy broadband” problem also is definitional. There are almost no continental U.S. home locations where internet access at “broadband” speeds is unavailable, if one includes satellite access among the relevant platforms. 

That is why home broadband availability suffers in areas with lots of rural households and also tends to be best in urban areas. 

In fact, one often sees descriptions of home broadband that are examples of innumeracy, such as the claim that 0.2 percent represents “so many” locations when it actually represents “so few.”

On the other hand, customer choice also is disregarded, though it is a huge factor in choices made about whether to buy home broadband services. 13 percent of households say they do not want to use the internet. 

In addition to that, at least 15 percent of U.S. residents report they are mobile-only for their internet access. Assume that equates to about seven percent of households. 

So add up those two categories--do not want to use the internet and use mobile for internet access--and you have as much as  20 percent of U.S. households that have good reasons for not buying home broadband services. 

“Availability” is far less an issue. 

The key issue is the oft-repeated insistence that something is a “big problem” when perhaps that is not the case. Problems can exist, and still not tell the story. One percent and two percent issues remain issues. But that should not obscure the main story, which is that 98 percent to 99 percent of instances are perhaps not problems at all.

Orange, Masmovil in Spain to Merge Their Assets

A merger of Orange and Masmovil in Spain will create a new entity with about 25 percent share of the access business revenue in Spain (both mobility and fixed network services). 

At least some observers believe the proposed deal with provide clues about regulator willingness to allow more consolidation in EU markets that reduce the number of main competitors from four to three. 

The deal would create a telecom market with three leaders: Movistar (Telefonica), the new firm and Vodafone.

source: CNMC 

The firms are likely to make the argument to regulators that the deal should be approved to allow the new firm, jointly owned by Orange and Masmovil, to speed up investments in 5G and next-generation platforms.

Home Broadband Resisters: Mobile and "Not Interested in the Internet" are the Big Issues Now

Can you name a single government program that achieves 99 percent of its goals? And if any such program achieves 99 percent of its actual numeric goal, does it make any sense to say such an outcome is not worth cheering? 

Where it comes to home broadband, if you pay attention to the actual numbers, the “unconnected” problem is a “last two percent of locations” issue, and always is. The actual size of the “cannot buy broadband” problem also is definitional. There are almost no continental U.S. home locations where internet access at “broadband” speeds is unavailable, if one includes satellite access among the relevant platforms. 

That is why home broadband availability suffers in areas with lots of rural households and also tends to be best in urban areas. 

In fact, one often sees descriptions of home broadband that are examples of innumeracy, such as the claim that 0.2 percent represents “so many” locations when it actually represents “so few.”

On the other hand, customer choice also is disregarded, though it is a huge factor in choices made about whether to buy home broadband services. 13 percent of households say they do not want to use the internet. 

In addition to that, at least 15 percent of U.S. residents report they are mobile-only for their internet access. Assume that equates to about seven percent of households. 

So add up those two categories--do not want to use the internet and use mobile for internet access--and you have as much as  20 percent of U.S. households that have good reasons for not buying home broadband services. 

“Availability” is far less an issue.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Not every job can be done remotely, and perhaps we should also recognize that though employees like it, productivity is not necessarily improved or maintained when workers are full-time remote. What is true “in the office” is likely also true “out of the office:” 80 percent of total worker value is created by 20 percent of the activities at work, and perhaps also by 20 percent of the workers. 

It is too easy to blame insecure bosses for resistance to remote work. Even younger CEOs are expressing concern about the productivity impact of remote work, though some claim there is evidence of enhanced productivity. 

We can say with some certainty that people prefer working remotely. But that is a different issue than whether productivity is better, the same or worse. Employee satisfaction often is higher with remote work, but that also is not the same as asking whether workers are more productive. All we know is that they report being happier. But they also might be distracted. 

Also, we cannot be sure that team productivity is positively or negatively affected, even if we think we have some sense of individual productivity.    

In truth, since knowledge worker productivity is exceedingly hard to measure, all we often have are opinions of workers who claim they are more productive. Some cite email activity or meetings as evidence that productivity has not dropped. Some of us will question whether measuring email volume or number of meetings attended as useful measures of business outcomes, though.

In fact, it might be fair to say we do not really know what has happened to productivity as lots of office workers went remote. Productivity might be higher for some; the same for others and lower for some significant number of people. 

Much will hinge on the type of work done, the personalities of the actual people, the phase in career, and the amount of value random collaboration actually creates. 

 Remote work is not  going to go away, but it might not grow as much as much expect, either. The bigger issue is what we think we are measuring when trying to assess productivity. The adage “garbage in, garbage out” applies.