This paper provides a framework for understanding competition and industry
structure in the context of Fiber to the Home (FTTH). We present engineering cost
models, which indicate that FTTH is a decreasing cost industry, thereby making
facilities based competition an unlikely outcome. Non-facilities based competition
(or service level competition) in FTTH can happen in data-link layer (or transport)
services via unbundled dark fiber (i.e. unbundled network elements) and in higher
layer (voice, video and data) services via logical layer unbundling (or open
access). FTTH architectures differ in the extent to which they support unbundling
and therefore the extent of non-facilities based competition in FTTH depends on
the architecture of the shared network over which multiple service providers offer
service. Among the four different FTTH architectures considered, the curbside
single-wavelength Passive Optical Network architecture (PON) that has isolated
pole-mounted splitters has the most economical fiber plant but permits unbundling
only at the logical layer. Consequently, though a PON supports ‘open access’
based competition in higher layer services like voice, data and switched digital
video, it does not facilitate competition in data-link layer services or in the
provision of analog broadcast video services. In complete contrast, the Home Run
architecture has the highest initial (fiber related) capital cost, but permits
unbundling of both the physical plant and at the logical layer. The Home Run
architecture therefore supports a per subscriber choice of data-link layer services
(via UNE based competition) as well as competition in higher layer voice, video
and data services (via open access).
This work further identifies deployment strategies, which can facilitate physical
plant unbundling at costs much lower than the Home Run architecture. Physical
plant unbundling is made possible by establishing Optimal Fiber Aggregation
Points (OFAPs) that aggregate multiple distribution fibers (or homes). Unbundling
is achieved at the cost of longer distribution loop lengths (vis-à-vis a curbside
PON). Ideally, both passive splitters and active electronics can be deployed at an
OFAP. OFAP architectures further lead to higher utilization of splitter and Optical
Line Termination (OLT) ports in markets that have less than 100% penetration
thereby providing the service provider with a real option to
(i) defer investment in
OLT ports
(ii) deploy multiple data-link layer technologies and
(iii) effectively
phase in new technologies - under both monopoly and competition.