BuddeBlog

According to a study by the University of Melbourne, Australia’s Internet will be slowed down further as a result of a surge in energy consumption caused by an increase in the uptake of broadband. The study has shown that even with an expansion in the energy efficiency of electronics, the Internet’s power consumption will rise from 0.5% of today’s national electricity consumption to 1% by about 2020.

The capacity of the Internet will have to be considerably increased to support the new high-bandwidth services eg video-on-demand, social networking, web-based real-time gaming, peer-to-peer networking, video conferencing, tele-working, and outsourcing etc. Greater than ever amounts of energy will be required to power and cool high-speed broadband Internet equipment, and this will lead to an increase in energy consumption, which will place a load on the country’s power infrastructure and contribute to the production of greenhouse gases. The University’s model takes in the network infrastructure needed to supply the growing traffic volume caused by the new high-bandwidth services.

For more information see: www.ee.unimelb.edu.au/green_internet/.

See also:

• Australia – Smart Grids – The Market in 2008;
• Australia – Smart Grids – Climate Change and the Environment;
• Australia – Smart Grids and BPL.

Tweet This Post

It looks as though Telstra customers in Australia are going to pay more for true broadband services than those serviced by other providers such as Internode and iiNet.

Obviously Telstra has a much larger network coverage than any other player in the country, and that situation is not going to change in the near future. However, these competitors, as well as other such as Optus, AAPT and Primus, are increasingly offering high-speed broadband services – often at half the price paid by Telstra customers.

Without national coverage companies such as iiNet (through Westnet) and Internode are now offering Telstra’s high-speed service (ADSL2+) to customers who are not on their network. To do this they have to buy the Telstra wholesale service, and this is often double the price of the retail service they are charging for their own service.

It will be interesting to see how long Telstra can maintain this situation, as surely their customers will eventually start complaining about it.

Also, in its response to the NBN tender proposals Telstra is still talking about very high charges going forward – not a good omen for affordable broadband under a Telstra NBN. This must be of concern to the government, which has done everything to entice Telstra to be part of the NBN.

Paul Budde

See also:

Australia – Broadband – ADSL2+ Providers;

Australia – Broadband – DSLAMs and ADSL2+;

Australia – Broadband – Network Operators and Wholesalers.

Tweet This Post

In North America e-commerce has grown steadily over the past five years. During that period, the average rate of growth in the value of online sales has been approximately 25% per annum. During 2007 the growth rate dropped to approximately 17%, largely reflecting a slowing economy, although the growth rate still greatly outstripped GDP.

The fastest growing e-commerce sectors by mid-2008 included, for instance, video games, consoles and accessories, furniture appliances and equipment and sport and fitness. Other sectors during that period witnessed a decline in spending, such as computer software, music, movies and videos.

By 2008 the value of e-commerce sales in the US was estimated at around $130 billion. This value amounts to approximately 3.3 percent of total US retail sales, up from around 1.5% in 2003. The share of retail accounted for by e-commerce is expected to continue to grow steadily over the next 5 to 10 years. In the short to medium term however, growth of e-commerce in absolute terms will remain constrained by the global financial crisis and the US recession.

See also: USA – Internet Market – Analysis, Statistics & Forecasts.

Tweet This Post

The NBN - what’s next?

In the end the Minister didn’t lose too much face. The only reason he began this rather flawed tender proposal process in the first place was to get Telstra on board, and at least the incumbent is still involved.

However, the content of Telstra’s proposal will make it extremely difficult for the Minister and his Expert Team to compare apples with apples. It is also highly unlikely that Telstra’s letter can be checked against the 18 key points the Minister has set for the NBN.

So, plenty of room for yet another year of ongoing delays, frustrations, bickering and no doubt the usual Telstra mudslinging. The Opposition could not have wished for a better outcome, as they seem to have no motivation whatsoever to operate in the national interest on this issue. Shadow Minister Nick Minchin will align himself with his old friends at Telstra simply to make political points against the government.

We have said all along that Telstra has to be part of the solution. At the same time the Minister remained firm on open access – open access in the context of the principles developed by the industry (which have been praised by telecoms experts in both the USA and Europe) and not on terms yet to be determined by Telstra.

However, we should now start moving towards what the government’s broadband promise is all about – delivering improved services to Australians and creating the right infrastructure for the emerging digital economy. This will need to support two-way video communications services in the areas of healthcare, aged care and education, as well as in business, entertainment and communications.

While these goals should be the focus, it seems that the whole issue is about who will be allowed to build that infrastructure. Frankly, we don’t mind who builds the network. What is critical, however, is that whoever builds the infrastructure delivers an open network that will generate competition, innovation and affordable prices for real broadband services. For that purpose a delegation of the CEO Forum of the Digital Economy Industry Workgroup will meet with the Minister on December 2^nd.

Telstra’s proposed 1Mb/s service for $29.95 is rather ridiculous and indicates that it will stick to its high end-user prices of around $85+ for some form of true broadband. This most certainly will not stimulate the development of a digital economy in Australia.

Why didn’t it come up with a price for the government’s demanded rate of 12Mb/s? It looks as though Telstra has something to hide. The talk of 25Mb/s services demonstrated innovative thinking, but again there was no mention of consumer pricing – that is most likely in the Rolls Royce class.

In order to make true broadband affordable for most Australians a 10Mb/s service should be available for around $39. While in Australia we continue to fiddle around with 1Mb/s services the industry and the regulator in the Netherlands have basically agreed on an FttH (100Mb/s) access fee starting from E12 per month. It is about time we started benchmarking this level of services. While the FttN service, as proposed for Australia, was perhaps a viable option three or four years ago, to start with that now would place us once again right behind the eight ball. It will at least take another year to sort out the current mess and then another three to five years to build it, and only after that will Australia start considering FttH. So, rather than catching up, we would be getting further and further behind.

This state of affairs has largely been brought about by the procrastination of successive governments.

Telstra’s proposal for a 90% fibre coverage does, however, make perfect sense and also confirms our analyses that it will (at least in the medium term – the next five years) be extremely wasteful to ignore the reality that we should use wireless for most of the last 10% of the population.

Sol Trujillo will be going back to the US soon, so let us hope that, with a new CEO (and chairman), we will then be able to start some serious negotiations. Nothing will change while Trujillo is at the helm. Things will be dragged on for as long as possible and no serious attempt will be made to negotiate an outcome that would be in the spirit of the Minister’s NBN vision and that will be acceptable to both the national interest and that of Telstra’s shareholders.

Trujillo will also find a totally changed telecoms environment when he gets back to the USA. The Obama Team is talking about open access and structural reforms. So it looks like that Australia will even drop behind the USA.

We simply can’t afford to sit behind the rest of the world and under the current (Sol Trujillo) circumstances very strong legislation is necessary – nothing less than a government proposal for full structural separation; whatever is necessary to get Telstra to the negotiation table.

Minchin will be delighted if the Minister fails to take decisive action now. He is more than ready to obstruct the government process to the maximum and this alone could easily help drag the process out for at least another year.

The political price for such a prolonged process would be very high for the Labor Government. Australians are becoming more and more disillusioned by the promises that seem to end up either watered down or simply not delivered on. Only swift and strong action can stem the tide. Rightly or wrongly the people are increasingly seeing the current broadband process as a farce. If the government is serious about getting true broadband delivered in this term of government it had better get serious about it. We hope that this political threat will be a strong enough incentive for them to now finally act decisively.

Both the ACCC and the Expert Team who are now reviewing the tender proposals have had ample time to prepare themselves. Let’s be honest, there are not that many scenarios to consider so they should be able to make the right recommendations.

We are fairly confident that these recommendations will be sound, but there is no guarantee that the Minister will act upon them. If he wishes, he can throw them all away – do whatever he likes with all the proposals and all the recommendations. That is a rather scary thought.

While swift and decisive action is required, the last thing the country needs is a hasty panic-driven decision that is not going to deliver competition and innovation, or that will water down the open access principles, which will result in unaffordable high end-user prices. The Minister owes the country a transparent process; having attacked the previous government on several occasions on its failure to do so.

Paul Budde

See also:

• Australia – National Broadband Plan;
• Australia – National Broadband Plan Analysis RFP;
• Australia – National Broadband Plans from Telstra, Terria & others;
• Australia – National Broadband Plan – Analysis late 2008.

Tweet This Post

In the end the Minister didn’t lose too much face. The only reason he began this rather flawed tender proposal process in the first place was to get Telstra on board, and at least the incumbent is still involved.

However, the content of Telstra’s proposal will make it extremely difficult for the Minister and his Expert Team to compare apples with apples. It is also highly unlikely that Telstra’s letter can be checked against the 18 key points the Minister has set for the NBN.

So, plenty of room for yet another year of ongoing delays, frustrations, bickering and no doubt the usual Telstra mudslinging. The Opposition could not have wished for a better outcome, as they seem to have no motivation whatsoever to operate in the national interest on this issue. Shadow Minister Nick Minchin will align himself with his old friends at Telstra simply to make political points against the government.

We have said all along that Telstra has to be part of the solution. At the same time the Minister remained firm on open access – open access in the context of the principles developed by the industry (which have been praised by telecoms experts in both the USA and Europe) and not on terms yet to be determined by Telstra.

However, we should now start moving towards what the government’s broadband promise is all about – delivering improved services to Australians and creating the right infrastructure for the emerging digital economy. This will need to support two-way video communications services in the areas of healthcare, aged care and education, as well as in business, entertainment and communications.

While these goals should be the focus, it seems that the whole issue is about who will be allowed to build that infrastructure. Frankly, we don’t mind who builds the network. What is critical, however, is that whoever builds the infrastructure delivers an open network that will generate competition, innovation and affordable prices for real broadband services. For that purpose a delegation of the CEO Forum of the Digital Economy Industry Workgroup will meet with the Minister on December 2nd.

Telstra’s proposed 1Mb/s service for $29.95 is rather ridiculous and indicates that it will stick to its high end-user prices of around $85+ for some form of true broadband. This most certainly will not stimulate the development of a digital economy in Australia.

Why didn’t it come up with a price for the government’s demanded rate of 12Mb/s? It looks as though Telstra has something to hide. The talk of 25Mb/s services demonstrated innovative thinking, but again there was no mention of consumer pricing – that is most likely in the Rolls Royce class.

In order to make true broadband affordable for most Australians a 10Mb/s service should be available for around $39. While in Australia we continue to fiddle around with 1Mb/s services the industry and the regulator in the Netherlands have basically agreed on an FttH (100Mb/s) access fee starting from E12 per month. It is about time we started benchmarking this level of services. While the FttN service, as proposed for Australia, was perhaps a viable option three or four years ago, to start with that now would place us once again right behind the eight ball. It will at least take another year to sort out the current mess and then another three to five years to build it, and only after that will Australia start considering FttH. So, rather than catching up, we would be getting further and further behind.

This state of affairs has largely been brought about by the procrastination of successive governments.

Telstra’s proposal for a 90% fibre coverage does, however, make perfect sense and also confirms our analyses that it will (at least in the medium term – the next five years) be extremely wasteful to ignore the reality that we should use wireless for most of the last 10% of the population.

Sol Trujillo will be going back to the US soon, so let us hope that, with a new CEO (and chairman), we will then be able to start some serious negotiations. Nothing will change while Trujillo is at the helm. Things will be dragged on for as long as possible and no serious attempt will be made to negotiate an outcome that would be in the spirit of the Minister’s NBN vision and that will be acceptable to both the national interest and that of Telstra’s shareholders.

Trujillo will also find a totally changed telecoms environment when he gets back to the USA. The Obama Team is talking about open access and structural reforms. So it looks like that Australia will even drop behind the USA.

We simply can’t afford to sit behind the rest of the world and under the current (Sol Trujillo) circumstances very strong legislation is necessary – nothing less than a government proposal for full structural separation; whatever is necessary to get Telstra to the negotiation table.

Minchin will be delighted if the Minister fails to take decisive action now. He is more than ready to obstruct the government process to the maximum and this alone could easily help drag the process out for at least another year.

The political price for such a prolonged process would be very high for the Labor Government. Australians are becoming more and more disillusioned by the promises that seem to end up either watered down or simply not delivered on. Only swift and strong action can stem the tide. Rightly or wrongly the people are increasingly seeing the current broadband process as a farce. If the government is serious about getting true broadband delivered in this term of government it had better get serious about it. We hope that this political threat will be a strong enough incentive for them to now finally act decisively.

Both the ACCC and the Expert Team who are now reviewing the tender proposals have had ample time to prepare themselves. Let’s be honest, there are not that many scenarios to consider so they should be able to make the right recommendations.

We are fairly confident that these recommendations will be sound, but there is no guarantee that the Minister will act upon them. If he wishes, he can throw them all away – do whatever he likes with all the proposals and all the recommendations. That is a rather scary thought.

While swift and decisive action is required, the last thing the country needs is a hasty panic-driven decision that is not going to deliver competition and innovation, or that will water down the open access principles, which will result in unaffordable high end-user prices. The Minister owes the country a transparent process; having attacked the previous government on several occasions on its failure to do so.

Paul Budde
See also:
Australia – National Broadband Plan
Australia – National Broadband Plan Analysis RFP
Australia – National Broadband Plans from Telstra, Terria & others
Australia – National Broadband Plan – Analysis late 2008

Tweet This Post

Lies and more lies from Telstra

This time in relation to TransAct, Don McGauchie in his NBN speech said that TransAct had abandoned its own rollout in favour of reselling Telstra DSL. The facts however are:

• TransACT hasn’t abandoned using its own infrastructure and the costs of operation aren’t more expensive than hiring capacity from Telstra;
• TransACT is only using Telstra infrastructure where it doesn’t have its own infrastructure and the capital costs of network duplication are not sustainable;
• In areas of new build (greenfield) TransACT has been consistently beating Telstra by demonstrating it can deploy and operate infrastructure at a lower cost than Telstra.

See also: TransACT Communications Pty Limited.

Tweet This Post

Bringing fibre to SMEs

Stratix just released a new brief on a project they run with the aim to help adapt the open passive access FttH infrastructure, as is currently under development in the Netherlands, and redeploy it for higher usage services for businesses, particularly to assist the entry of CLECs and ISPs serving SMEs, and also companies that have their branch offices networked.

One of the main issues with a passive optical fibre plant suitable for business-grade services is that the installation of Ethernet switches in local neighbourhoods results in problems during power outages. Local neighbourhoods with point-to-point Ethernet switches will only provide battery backup to buildings for about an hour during power outages, whilst Municipal regulations and cost often prohibit the use of diesel generator back-up during power outages. The Brief describes how these issues can be overcome to provide an efficient service.

For further information see: http://www.stratix.com/stratix/Stratixbrief/Stratix_Brief_nov_2008.pdf

Tweet This Post

It has been more than two years since Sprint Nextel (‘Sprint’) first announced that it would deploy a wireless broadband network using mobile WiMAX in 85% of America’s top 100 markets, covering 100 million people, by the end of 2008. These prospects seemed to gain some momentum when, in early 2007, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire announced their plan to join forces to build this national WiMAX network.

However, by November 2007 the partners announced their divorce. Following several on-again-off-again announcements, the marriage was resuscitated in May 2008 when the two companies announced that they were pooling their WiMAX assets to create a new independent company, with the Clearwire name, valued at over $14.5 billion. Sprint is expected to have 51% ownership, Clearwire 27% and the remaining 22% stake will be held by new investors Intel Captial, Time Warner Cable, Bright House, Google and Comcast.

By June 2008 Sprint had announced that it expected to make commercially available its Clearwire WiMAX broadband services in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington-DC by year-end. It’s new coverage targets are 15 million by the end of 2008 and 140 million by the end of 2010.

Despite the credible financial backing and the imminent deployment, the largest WiMAX rollout planned anywhere in the world faces some serious challenges. Indeed, ever since Sprint Nextel’s initial announcement that it would roll out a US-wide WiMAX network, the plans have laboured under a cloud. The reason for this is that, until recently, the company struggled to produce a convincing business plan for its new activity.

As a mobile operator Sprint faces the reality that over the next five years it will need to transform its company from a voice-based operation to one based on data services. Currently its income is more than 80% dependent on voice services; however, over the next five to ten years that will decrease to less than 20% voice income, with the remainder coming from data.

As we have been predicting, mobile operators in developed markets are experiencing a threat to their traditional mobile service. With a mobile phone market that is almost saturated, companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone and T-Mobile are poaching each others customers and Average Revenue per User (ARPU) are dropping on that competition battleground. Sprint is, of course, doing the same but so far they are in a net loss position in this struggle.  

WiMAX could play a role in this battle and in particular in the transition phase from mobile voice to mobile data, and could leapfrog its competitors, but Sprint has chosen to develop its WiMAX service separately from its mobile business, using it largely for Internet access.

While there will be a niche market for such a ‘fixed wireless’ broadband service – one that will allow Sprint to compete with the fixed broadband services from Verizon, AT&T and the cable companies – the wireless broadband technology will never win from these competitors in the large metro and regional town markets. The fixed technology, particularly with the massive FttH deployment currently underway in the US, will be the most efficient and effective access technology in the mass markets for services such as these.

So WiMAX as a standalone ‘fixed wireless’ technology will struggle to successfully compete with the fixed operators.

Instead it has far more potential to compete in the mobile market, since it offers superior mobile data service (or, if you prefer the term, wireless broadband service).  WiMAX will eventually offer, in a more efficient way, both voice (VoIP) and data combined and, when it is finally commercially developed, it will be the ideal technology for personal wireless broadband services.

However, as indicated above, it has become clear that, as a competing fixed technology, WiMAX is inferior to the fibre networks that are being rolled out deeper and deeper into the market. Another major challenge facing WiMAX is the fact that Verizon and AT&T have declared long term evolution (LTE) as their future 4G technology.

However, Sprint’s CEO Dan Hesse, less than 12 months into this difficult role, has wisely obtained the backing of other major players with interest in the success of WiMAX. Google and Intel have expectations that a national WiMAX network will fuel a mass market for their products and services. Similarly, Comcast and Time Warner consider wireless broadband as an opportunity to deliver video, data, calling and other services to a new generation of mobile devices. Without backers of this calibre, WiMAX faced a bleak future in the face of the massive FttH deployment and the incumbents’ commitment to LTE.

Of course, by splitting off its WiMAX business, Sprint is probably creating a potential competitor that will ultimately have a superior wireless broadband technology. Such a company could seriously damage Sprint’s traditional business and sooner rather than later become a fierce competitor to its own mobile business. However, Sprint’s recent history of subscriber and profit demise has made this somewhat “do-or-die” WiMAX strategy one that Sprint has to pursue.

See also:

USA – Wireless Market – Analysis, Statistics & Forecasts;

USA – Broadband Market – Wireless Broadband.

Tweet This Post

The election of Barack Obama to the US Presidency is expected to have a significant impact on the telecommunications industry in North America. For those who have been demanding more government involvement in the deployment of broadband access to underserved areas and for greater regulation of the power of incumbents to control internet traffic, the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the White House is being met with great optimism.

During his presidential campaign Barack Obama signalled his intention to implement a number of changes should he be elected. Most significantly, Obama promised to protect the openness of the Internet by reinstating net neutrality during his first year in office. This includes a pledge that the principle of net neutrality would be applied by FCC commissioners during his administration.

On the question of broadband, Obama has proposed to fund national broadband access by means of a combination of, amongst other things, reform of the Universal Services Fund and new tax and loan incentives. Thus the Obama administration is expected to take greater responsibility for the funding of the deployment of next-generation broadband access across the country. Another stated ambition is to lift the minimum broadband speeds to 20Mbps, many times higher than the 200kbps which the FCC defines as broadband. Accordingly, for those calling for universal broadband to be a national priority and those disappointed by the United States’ broadband track record in recent years (the US has slipped from 4^th place amongst OECD countries in 2001 in terms of broadband penetration to 15^th in 2007) the result of the US elections will be warmly welcomed.

In addition, Obama has pledged to ensure diversity in media ownership. Obama had been critical of the FCC’s legacy in recent years of rubber-stamping mergers and acquisitions, and of promoting the concept of telecommunications consolidation in general. Contrary to this approach, Obama has promised to encourage diversity in media ownership, to encourage the development of new mediums of expression, and to clarify any public interest obligations that broadcasters may have. As part of this promise, one can expect to see a more interventionist FCC chairman than the current Kevin Martin. Indeed, one of Obama’s telecom’s advisors is former FCC chairman William Kennard who, during the Clinton years, sponsored an aggressive policy of narrowing the digital divide.

Although some of the reforms are likely to meet staunch resistance from various constituents within big business and Congress, there are at least three important factors which will ensure President-elect Obama has a strong mandate to prosecute his communications agenda. The first is the US’s lacklustre broadband network performance mentioned above, in which the US has fallen well-behind developments in many countries like South Korea and Japan. The second is the convincing win Obama had in the election which provides him with the political comfort to implement policies that may be unpalatable with some powerful sectors of industry. Finally, the recent government intervention in financial markets has taken the sting out of the argument that markets necessarily perform best when unregulated.

Of course, working against these factors is the fact that Obama takes office of an ailing economy. Thus there will be many other sectors pressing for reform and competing for government assistance. In addition, Obama inherits what may be an unpopular analogue TV switch-off scheduled for February 2009, with an estimated 20% of households at risk of not being fully prepared in time and hence being potentially left without television. Despite these challenges, the Obama administration is likely to successfully implement several important reforms of US communications markets which may have long-term effects lasting well beyond his presidency.

See also:

• USA – Broadband Market – Cable modem and DSL – Analysis, Statistics and Forecasts;
• USA – Broadband Market – Fibre to the Home (FttH) Overview, Statistics & Forecasts.

Tweet This Post

Dutch wholesale fibre: another lesson for Europe

During the last few years The Netherlands’ comprehensive DSL and cable networks have been supplemented with wide-scale fibre deployment. Much of this infrastructure has been based on proven municipal involvement as towns and regions endeavour to safeguard their ‘fast broadband’ credentials and thus secure and retain an edge in the competitive market for jobs and skilled labour.

The need for fast broadband has dug deeper into society, and now manifests itself in any number of ways. National and local governments have long seen broadband as a means to develop a variety of health, commercial and educational measures, while the construction sector has used its fibre infrastructure in certain new-build estates as a potent selling point. Financial commitments from KPN/Reggefiber, BBned and a number of municipalities have pushed The Netherlands to the forefront of fibre infrastructure in Europe. Indeed, The Netherlands is currently one of the few countries where genuine FttH is installed on a serious scale. By mid-2008 fibre accounted for about 2% of all broadband connections and by 2012 about 10% of all households are expected to be connected. Given the pace of KPN’s fibre roll-out, fibre penetration could reach 90-95% by 2020-2025.

Most activity is currently in Amsterdam (the Citynet project, nearing completion), Deventer, Almere, and Eindhoven. The recent decision by KPN/Reggefiber to invest 6-7 billion in a national FttH network within the next few years with further consolidate this lead. The country will become the regional benchmark against which other European operators and regulators will be assessed.

KPN/Reggefiber has also recently proposed offering wholesale fibre for between 12 and 17.50 per month. The price difference depends on the area type and CAPEX: higher cost areas would be more expensive to compensate for increased build costs. In effect, KPN as the first to roll-out infrastructure in certain areas will secure a strong market presence since it is unlikely that other operators will build duplicate networks. Nor will there be a need for duplication, since the regulator plans to manage KPN’s fibre in the same way as its does its copper network, enforcing safeguards on prices and ‘fair’ practices, and providing other operators with regulated access. In some respects KPN’s policy is to strike first rather than lose business to new entrants, as it accepts that it cannot compete with fibre operators in areas where it does not have a fibre network in place. Indeed the company has lost customers to UPC where UPC is present, mostly due to KPN’s inability to provide a competitive TV service.

The wholesale price suggests a retail price which would bring FttH in line with cable and DSL pricing and so provide the incentive for consumers to take up the service or switch from existing cable/DSL contracts. Given these conditions, the Dutch should see a rapid migration to FttH in coming years as areas are upgraded – KPN anticipated being able to fibre-enable 200,000 annually but could push this to a maximum 600,000 annually. The move has considerable implications for existing infrastructure since KPN would be in a position to mothball DSLAMs and much of its VDSL2 network.

It also should motivate, and educate, other European regulators and telcos, many of which continue to play cat-and-mouse on the appropriate regulatory conditions needed to progress with their own fibre deployments. BT, for example, proposed several months ago that it would provide fibre (FttC) to 40% of households. This in itself was always likely to be a second-best option, but at the close of 2008 there has been little progress: the company still lobbies Ofcom for greater control over wholesale access and pricing to make its investments in fibre worthwhile, and still talks of pulling the plug on the venture altogether (now with the added justification of the current economic climate) if regulators do not show greater cooperation. The pragmatic Dutch are simply finding solutions and moving on.

For more information, see separate reports:

• Europe – Broadband Market – Overview & Statistics;
• Europe – Infrastructure – FttH & NGNs;
• Netherlands – Broadband Market – Overview, Statistics & Forecasts;
• Netherlands – Key Statistics, Telecom Market & Regulatory Overviews;
• Netherlands – Fibre-to-the-home Developments;
• United Kingdom – Broadband – Fixed Network Overview, Statistics & Forecasts.

Tweet This Post