Alternative Networks

1. Alternative Networks NREN Workshop: 4 – 5 February 2003 Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands By Reza Tadayoni* & Knud Erik Skouby** Center for Tele-Information Technical University of Denmark *Assistant professor at Center for Tele-Information , e-mail: reza@cti.dtu.dk ** Professor in Economics and Regulation of Telecom and the director of Center for Tele-Information, email: skouby@cti.dtu.dk.

2. Overview • D3 Report • What are alternative networks? • Why alternative networks? • Network architecture • The deployed technology • The organisations and the ownership structure • The funding and business models • Final remarks

3. D3 Report • The D3 Report contains an analysis of alternative networks based on case studies (incl. Canada, Japan, Switzerland & USA) • The case studies and the analysis are input for broader discussions in the project. • This presentation is an overview of findings with reference to the cases.

4. What are alternative networks? • Alternative networks differ from traditional networks in: • The structure and architecture of networks • The organisation and ownership structure • The business model and funding • Traditional Networks in this project are Research and Education networks

5. Why alternative networks? (I) • Important parameters influencing the emergence of the alternative networks are: • General liberalisation of the market • Technological development • The decreasing cost of establishing network infrastructures • And Changes and differentiation in the usage patterns call for non-traditional networks, structured for specific usage without the best effort paradigm

6. Why alternative networks? (II) Source: Cess de Laat, Surfnet, presentation at SERENATE workshop at La Hulpe

7. Network Architecture (I) • The idea behind the new network architectures is generally to establish different network services for different users. • This is very evident in the case of super SINET in Japan: high capacity demanding users have access to super high capacity.

8. Network Architecture (II)

9. The deployed technology • Dark fibres seem an efficient infrastructure technology for networks in small geographical areas, cf. both Canadian and Swedish cases. Also wireless microwave links are appropriate. • For long distance connectivity LAMBDA technology is appropriate

10. The organisations and the ownership structure • A paradigm shift in many alternative networks: the telecom operator is bypassed and the user have end-to-end control of the networks . • Larger networks tend to have a third party provider facilitating maintenance of the infrastructure. Part (or the whole) of the spectrum in the transmission lines (Lambdas) is leased or owned

11. The funding and business models • If a user has end-to-end ownership and control of a network the funding is based on charging for regular operation and maintenance of facilities in the organisation • If different users own the same network a variety of models can be used. In the Canadian discussion a condominium model known from apartments is suggested.

12. Final remarks (I) • Our case studies show emerging customer empowered networks, both regional and country wide • The non-monolithic network architecture approach is one of the drivers in the development • Alternative business models as the condominium model known from apartments are suggested. • The organisation and architecture of the network implies that the users include new competencies in their organizations.

13. Final remarks (II) • At (technical) universities the network competencies are available – in other institutions? • There are, however, good reasons to believe in the success of the alternative networks: • the process can be characterized as extending the LAN to MAN and WAN and this will • reduce the complexity of different networks layers, • reduce the number of components in the network • extend the success of the LANs into wider networks.