1. Fibre Optical Networks for Municipalities in Greece: Myths and Realities CHRISTOS BOURAS Associate Professor Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics, University of Patras, Greece Research Academic Computer Technology Institute (RACTI) http://ru6.cti.gr/bouras/

2. Overview of FTTH projects all over the world (1/2) Sweden (Stokab, Sollentuna, Hudiksvall, Västerås, etc.) Finland Netherlands (Amsterdam, the Hague, Tilburg, Almere and Nuenen) Switzerland Norway Ireland United Kingdom France (Siperec, Paris, etc.) Austria (Vienna and Ried) Denmark 2

3. Germany Italy Spain (LocalRet) Portugal Russia Slovenia Slovakia Lithuania USA (UTOPIA project, Lafayette) Canada New Zealand 3 Overview of FTTH projects all over the world (2/2)

4. Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm) (1/3)  Stokab was founded in 1994 and is owned by the company group Stockholms Stadshus AB, which is in turn owned by the City of Stockholm  The main task of Stokab is to provide IT- infrastructure in the Stockholm region and to lease out fiber optic connections  Its role is to lay an operator-neutral foundation for IT infrastructure  Stokab provides physical networks that are open to all operators and service providers for the delivery of services to their end- users 4

5. Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm) (2/3) 5  The same infrastructure allows public agencies, businesses, property owners and organizations to meet their data and telecommunication needs through dedicated networks  The municipality of Stockholm – through Stokab – behaves equally to all the “players”, creating in this way a confidential state, which in turn, contributes to the rapid development of this region  Stokab offers the possibility for development of other business networks that can adapt to the special needs of each unit

6.  Stokab’s business concept as an operator- neutral network owner is to: lay the foundation for the IT infrastructure in the Stockholm region, particularly in the City of Stockholm, and thereby contribute to the region’s development function as communication network operator for the City of Stockholm’s internal networks to serve both administrative purposes and public needs in the areas of education, childcare, recreation and culture in collaboration with players in the market, to promote the ongoing and systematic rollout of infrastructure for wireless communication in Stockholm in partnership with the municipal housing corporations, to stimulate and drive development of the broadband market in the City and the region 6 Sweden - Stokab (Stockholm) (3/3)

7. USA – Burlington, Vermont (1/3)  Private Companies  City Network  Universal Network (interconnects all areas throughout a city) 7

8. USA – Burlington, Vermont (2/3)  4 Goals Universal Access (reasonable prices) Open Access (similar to public streets) Future Proof (ensure long term usage, provide flexibility and scalability) Financially Self-Sustaining (financing by end users – and not through taxes) 8

9. USA – Burlington, Vermont (3/3)  Implementation Phases 9

10. Argument in favor of government- sponsored broadband networks 10

11. Argument against government- sponsored broadband networks 11

12. Open Network  A network that: Network Operator and Service Operator are discrete entities Reciprocal contracts between end users and service providers Network Operator is not involved in any other operation except for the connectivity service End users may select a service from any service provider over a shared infrastructure controlled by the network operator  This is an OPEN NETWORK 12

13. Cost Factors  The cost depends on: FTTH Architecture Material Prices Existing Infrastructure (underground or air infrastructure) Characteristics of ground/ underground Cost for Working Urban/Suburban/Rural (houses/km 2 ) 13

14. FTTΗ architectures  Home Run Fiber (HFR)  Passive Optical Netowrk (PON)  WDM PON  Active Ethernet 14

15. From Copper to Fiber 15

16. FTTH Potential Development from 2006 to 2011 16

17. Factors that affect FTTH Deployments (1/3) 17

18. Factors that affect FTTH Deployments (2/3) 18

19. Factors that affect FTTH Deployments (3/3) 19

20. How Incumbents face FTTH 20

21. Utility projects of FTTH deployments 21

22. Suggestions for FTTH deployment models in Greece  Characteristics of FTTH deployment models for Greece: To grant non discriminatory access to all carriers, the business model of the player operating the network should be based on an open network approach To grant sustainability of the business case digging costs should be reduced as much as possible, therefore involving all players that can contribute to this main objective If digging activities cost reduction will not be enough to allow a sustainable business model government subsidies (either local or central) need to be planned  Support of the Government in issuing relevant laws is key for the success of a FTTH project 22

23. Utility Companies Main assets Digging activities facilitation due to core business development Capital to invest, if a business opportunity is envisaged Local Gas companies (EPA/ SPA), that are currently in the process of digging seem to be the best candidates to deploy also fiber Power company, PPC, seems to have mainly aerial connections, therefore can become a player in the case the decision to dig for the core business is taken in Athens and Thessaloniki Sewer and water system company appear to have already ditches in place but the systems do not grant access for ductsίνας Greek landscape The government/ competition authority could contribute granting that utility companies should offer telecommunic ation services based on an open network approach and ensuring non discriminatory access to all carriers Main players to deploy FTTH project in Greece (1/2)

24. 24 Collectivity of Municipalities Coordination of many different players to grant “clever digging” Simplify authorizations, permits, etc… Possibility to invest public funds to deploy the network The Greek municipalities could be the facilitators and coordinators of digging activities and could also simplify the process and timing to get authorizations and permits to dig Low possibility to invest since no public funds are available The Government could contribute with specific State Aid for extra digging The government could contribute granting that whenever a digging activity is under deployment, ditches should be available also for laying fiber optic networks Main players to deploy FTTH project in Greece (2/2) Main assets Greek landscape

25. Prevailing Model for FTTH Development in Greece  A Public and Private Consortium: Private Companies Municipalities Public Benefit Organizations OTHERS ? 25

26. Note  Streets were built in order to provide transportation for all vehicles (OPEN ACCESS)  BROADBAND IS A PUBLIC INFRASTUCTURE WITH GREAT IMPACT ON LOCAL ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT 26

27. Bibliography (1/2)  Fiber Optics for Government and Public Broadband: A Feasibility Study Prepared for the City and County of San Francisco, January 2007  Municipal Broadband: Digging Beneath the Surface Balhoff & Rowe, LLC  Towards Technologically and Competitively Neutral Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Infrastructure Anupam Banerjee and Marvin Sirbu, Carnegie Mellon University  State aid, open access and market size: two cases of fith network implementation in Dutch municipalities B.M. Sadowski, M. de Rooij en J. Smits, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands, Working Paper 06.09  Burlington Telecom Case Study, Christopher Mitchel, August 2007 27

28. Bibliography (2/2)  FTTH in Europe: Forecast & Prognosis 2006-2011, Heavy Reading  An overview of Fiber, European (Muni and other) Fiber to the Home and Fiber backbone projects, Dirk van der Woude, Αugust 2007  http://www.vonmag-digital.com http://www.vonmag-digital.com Oct 2006  http://www.ftthblog.com http://www.ftthblog.com  http://www.lightreading.com  http://www.fiberevolution.com http://www.fiberevolution.com Blog Fiber Bible Update – An Overview of Fiber  http://www.ftthcounsil.eu http://www.ftthcounsil.eu  http://broadband.cti.gr http://broadband.cti.gr  http://interreg-broadband.cti.gr http://interreg-broadband.cti.gr 28

29. Questions 29