a 10 times improvement (.1% packet loss) in quality for applications that need it.
a factor of 16 times increase in peak hour resources -to circa 480Kbps per user.
Unlimited usage for all local networking.
I also believe that that coverage of more than 99% is possible based on the emerging costs per premises past.
The BBBritain perspective on how the above outcomes can be achieved is downloadable from here. Feel free to take, use and improve. Comments welcome.
Developing a Universal Broadband Service Obligation
and a national Data Transport network.
(From best effort browsing to quality home working.)
The move from a Universal Broadband Service Commitment to a Universal Broadband Service Obligation could be driven by a simple policy goal of demanding that the UK data transport infrastructure supports a quality home working experience on a national basis.
If the policy makers were to define an Obligation as opposed to a commitment based on todays broadband infrastructure, how could it be written? It could not be an 'up to' speed or an Ofcom average. The obligation would be expressed as the delivery of a browsing experience in the peak hour needing 30Kbps per user keeping packet loss kept at about circa 3% of packets delivered and ensuring the networks were never more than 95% loaded so they do fail due to congestion. This, amidst all the speed claims and the propaganda this is our lot from the perspective of describing what data transport exists and what sort of an obligation could be agreed at todays 'affordable' prices.
If the policy goal was set to move from an undeclared best effort browsing experience which supports lots of downloading in off peak periods to a goal of delivering quality home working (for instance), then our connectivity would need to support full video conferencing, virtual private networking, streaming, and file sharing. Excluded is the need provide a full multi-channel TV experience. The goal is simple to state, but in stating it we need to accept that we are reconfiguring a whole industry to achieve that goal. Such a goal needs declaring at some point if the Government is to be successful in transforming the delivery of key public services, care , heath and education. Tax collection can be done on the network equivalent of wet string, but delivering services requiring human interaction demands more than a best effort browsing experience.
It is essential to note that this will cost more to deliver but the underlying data transport is then capable of support legacy voice services. The affordability argument goes away when you add the cost of todays affordable broadband experience to the cost of an affordable fixed voice service and the cost of an affordable mobile broadband and mobile voice service and treat them as single bill item. This is what convergence means. A well configured data transport service is disruptive in nature. Todays connectivity is just a taster.
Moving from a simple browsing outcome to a quality home working outcome could be done in a networking and engineering sense pretty quickly, but the disruption to the existing status quo would be immense.
We can use the 2Mbps headline number, only because it means little. Quality home working would demand access to fixed and mobile communications. It would demand a much lower packet loss rate .1% loss so video and multi-media calling could be supported. The termination device will need to double as a mini-mobile base station. A more generous peak hour allowance is needed. The customer would have additional transparency of network parameters
Put simply the underlying data transport would be re-tuned to allow permit it to do more of what we expect. This would include using those resources to support existing voice services.
On its own it would suggest the cost would be higher, but if done correctly any increase would come from removing the costs of legacy services and using that money to increase the resources assigned to each persons connectivity.
Setting what is a straight forward goal, demands you start describing the UK's data transport infrastructure. These are just some of the characteristics needed.
At its simplest a national data transport infrastructure will deliver each1 bit packet of data to and from anywhere in the UK in 20 milliseconds or less. The volume of data carried and its peak hour loading will be the subject of a long debate, but whatever the peak load and its distribution be it 1 terabit or 3 terabits, the national data transport infrastructure should deliver 99.9% of its load in less than 100 milliseconds anywhere in the UK.
Low loss rates and statistical predictable outcomes permits key service delivery to be planned.
The data transport infrastructure consists of fixed and mobile components in a single converged fabric, using the same protocols, and engineered to make the most efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The does mean the users Broadband connections should act as mini base stations, leaving the macrocells for what they are best at which is facilitating connectivity for fast moving vehicles.
This will mean a change to spectrum auctions, or at least should do. Five mobile operators having exclusive use of spectrum where 70% of the data is coming from devices which are stationary is not a good use of radio spectrum. My home has more bandwidth than a mobile base station, and my home if treated as a mini-sell, which is already is for other frequencies is perfectly placed for my unconnected neigbours to access services they need.
If the base station as broadband end point is accepted as it should, there exists the means of converging fixed and mobile services into a single proposition and product set.
It changes dramatically the current regulatory divisions of fixed and mobile services. It proclaims the end of voice and data. It is a common data transport infrastructure whose job is the transfer of bits.
It demands a move away from cost recovery based on call conveyance and the creation of a regime bases on bits transferred.
On the one hand it suggests that infrastructure providers jointly plan a national data transport fabric, perhaps two fabrics , where the network operations of existing providers merge a create choice of no more that two fabrics. Openreach, BTW,and two mobile operators make one network group, Virgin Media, C&W, the remaining two mobile operators, and the network operations of Sky and Carphone networks forms the other group. This is from an network planning perspective. High speeds and cheaper bandwidth can only be achieved if fibre is efficiently deployed, rather than 5 sets of infrastructure in urban areas and none elsewhere, where all that is needed is a choice of two.
The move by mobile by network operators to share networks is just a realisation that building five networks is an inefficient thing to do. It is also an appalling waste of radio spectrum when compared with using mini-base stations at the end of broadband connections.
The network providers would be regulated to provide world class data transport. They would be motivated and rewarded for transporting bits. The more bits they carry, the more they earn, the latter interconnect replaces the existing call conveyance regime which recovers historical costs.
There would need to be a clear demarcation between data transport and those selling services over that transport. All retail services providers would have equal and transparent access to services provided by the transport carriers.
The is a short summary. The ongoing focus on speed rather than outcomes is a real concern. By focusing on an outcome, you get a much better debate on how to deliver the outcome, the policy changes and the business case needed to support the improvement in connectivity. The investment in our connectivity is a function of the outcomes we aim for.
Those like Kip Meek (BSG), Carphone Warehouse (Andrew Heaney), even BT say they cannot see the need for high speed access on a national basis. Reconciling that with view those demanding fiber everywhere is hard to explain, but both are looking at two different things. Data Transport infrastructure configured to deliver a best effort browsing experience of 30Kbps is only fit for the purpose stated and no other, so it does lack ambition. Those demanding fibre roll-outs are less guilty, but never the less need to specify the outcomes we expect. Without a significant re-configuration of TV broadcast delivery then the best case to support investment is the need to support key service delivery. In this context the delivery of a quality home working experience acts as useful proxy to define what connectivity is needed for a whole range of critical services. The investment in next generation access will be a by-product of this change.
The challenge for incumbents (Fixed and Mobile operators) is that in order to get at increased revenue streams from Broadband they will need to sacrifice their legacy voice and messaging revenues. They like Ofcoms competition policies are becoming victims of their own success. In delivering and popularising first generation best effort access to the internet and services hosted on the world wide web, it is apparent to users that notion of fixed and mobile is dated and the notion of voice and data is equally out of date.