What are Telcos to do with their copper plant?

 
Recently we have seen major players in the local telecoms market advertising Fiber to the home (FTTH) or Fiber to the Node (FTTN). Engineers will tell you that FTTX is ultimately the best fixed access technology available today supporting GPON, EPON etc and as such is "future proof". But what are operators to do with their legacy copper plant? The answer is simple. Sweat that asset as long as possible, even against a backdrop of impending Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) regulations.

 On the Cable end they have DOCSIS 3.1 which allows 10 Gbps per network node downstream and 1 Gbps upstream which, despite the shared-bandwidth nature of their networks will enable cable operators to remain extremely competitive. On the Telco side, you have VDSL2, which allow telcos to deliver 100 Mbps services over copper assuming copper infrastructure was previously redesigned to have shorter loop lengths as shown below.


New technology being tested/implemented in Telcos is G. Fast which was tested recently by Cable and Wireless Panama. Download speeds were as high as 500 Mbps existing copper fixed lines. With this technology operators with significant copper plant can "sweat those assets" all things being equal. Obviously, operators have to take this on a case by case basis as in some instances (competitive pressure, quality of existing copper plant, etc.) it may just make good business sense to go the FTTH route. However, note that it doesn't stop here as on the horizon is 5 Gigabit broadband (See bandwidth comparison below). So think carefully as you may not want to wreck that copper plant just yet.

Adapted from Huawei

Watch out that message may not be private!!!!

I came across a judgement in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dated 12th January 2016 and thought I should share. The terminated employee who was previously classified as an engineer in charge of sales in a private company filed a complaint where he claimed that his right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence had been violated by his employer. At his employer’s request, he created a Yahoo Messenger account for the purpose of responding to clients’ inquiries.

The employer On July 13, 2007, informed the employee that his Yahoo Messenger communications between July 5 to July 13, 2007 were monitored and that the records showed he had used the internet for personal purposes. The employee countered in writing indicating that he only used Yahoo Messenger for business purposes at which point the the employer provided transcripts of messages between the employee and family members some of which dealt the health and sex life. The employee was subsequently terminated on 1st August 2007 for breach of the company’s internal regulations which prohibited the use of company resources for personal purposes.”

The employee challenged his employer’s decision at the ECHR. The court dismissed the employees complaint sighting that the employee had been duly informed of the company’s regulations. The court placed on record that it was not unreasonable for an employer to verify that employees were performing assigned tasks during working hours moreso as the employer had access to the employee's account given that it contained client-related communications.

Most local companies have some rules surrounding the use of the communications tools which traditionally would be email and correspondence and as such some companies may have to review these regulations as they may be dated and not contain clauses surrounding social media apps. However, employers need to beware as well given that reading an employee's communication may have implications under the Interception Of Communications Act  depending on how the password was obtained.

Does your organization have regulations surronding the use of personal computers, email systems etc? If so do employees adhere to the policy?

Third Mobile Operator in Trinidad and Tobago

Loaded cell tower 
Photo credit : Hassan Voyeau 

So recently we would have seen several companies articulate the position that a third mobile operator in T&T is not feasible in a market where mobile penetration as at December 2014 was 149.1% and only two operators will get a 4G license in the 750Mhz spectrum. We have seen residents object to mobile towers being built in their communities and in some cases they have gotten towers removed. The issue has always been the provision of mobile coverage vs customers concerns around radio frequency emissions from these sites. However, results from studies/test all indicate that local towers meet the compliance levels set by TATT and even the standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the USA.

Most mobile towers are already fully loaded as a result co-location (tower space is rented to other providers) and the number of services being provided via these towers such as Mobile, Wireless broadband etc.

One solution available to TATT if they want further competition in the mobile space is the introduction of a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO). An MVNO is really a wholesale arrangement that allows the Mobile Network Operator (MNO - Digicel or TSTT) to sell excess capacity to an MVNO. Virgin Mobile and Red Pocket Mobile are perfect examples of MVNOs.

So what should happen next?

TSTT and TATT battle!!!!!

The biggest news item to close off 2015 was TSTT successfully averting a licensing fiasco. TSTT and Digicel had concessions that expired on the 29th December 2015. The concessions that expired are:

Public International Telecommunications Services - Digicel & TSTT
Subscription Broadcasting Service (TV) - TSTT
Public Domestic Fixed Telecommunications Network - TSTT
Public Domestic Mobile Telecommunications Network - Digicel & TSTT


With TSTT holding on to > 50% market share in all markets (mobile?) except television a shutdown of these services would have dire consequences for T&T not just from a commercial standpoint but also from a national security standpoint as well. A simple check of TATT's (Local Telecoms Regulator) website reveals that apart from TSTT, concessions for Flow, Network Technologies Limited and Open Telecom expire today (4th January 2016)

Flow
Public International Telecommunications Services
Subscription Broadcasting Service (over a Public Domestic Fixed Telecom. Network only)
Public Domestic Fixed Telecommunications Network

Network Technologies Limited
Subscription Broadcasting Service (over a Public Domestic Fixed Telecom. Network only)
Public Domestic Fixed Telecommunications Network.

Open Telecom
Public International Telecommunications Service


So a few questions come to mind.

1) The concession document is a standard contract with adjustments made for each provider depending on the services offered and market being served (national, niche/community). The document also defines quality of service requirements (Schedule F - which will be discussed in a future post). So if clauses were amended/removed has this now placed TSTT at an advantage/disadvantage over other concessionaires?

2) Have other providers signed their renewals or are they still in negotiations? If negotiations are ongoing with the other providers why was TSTT forced to sign its renewal?

3) When will TATT give us its side of the story?

Finally, a concession is renewed by the line minister on the recommendation of TATT upon application by the concessionaire to TATT and secondly TATT also examines the concessionaire's previous compliance with the conditions of the concession to determine whether the concession should be renewed.

We're back!!!!

After a well deserved rest I have a lot of things to share with you for 2016. So look out its going to be an awesome year.