This is the cached copy of http://www.wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/meetings/committee/Strategy_and_Policy/2008/10Apr0915/pdf/1_Broadband_Paper.pdf

Page 1
STRATEGY AND POLICY
COMMITTEE
10 APRIL 2008
REPORT 1
(1215/52/IM)
WELLINGTON BROADBAND PROJECT
1. Purpose of Report
To report back on the broadband work programme agreed on 1 March 2007,
and recommend next steps in an implementation plan for the Broadband Vision
agreed by Council - for high speed, affordable and ubiquitous broadband.
To achieve this, the report includes:
• Further quantitative and qualitative analysis of potential broadband benefits
for Wellington City;
• An update on recent developments in the NZ telecommunications sector and
the impact on this project;
• Results of a Request for Concept process and ongoing dialogue with
stakeholders;
• The rationale for Council intervention in the broadband market;
• Discussion of ways in which Council could achieve public good objectives
and drive investment and competition in the broadband market;
• Recommended next steps in four key areas: policy changes; establishment of
a duct network; advocacy to government; and preparation of a business
model for direct investment in an urban fibre network;
• A communication and consultation plan.
2. Executive Summary
By adopting a clear vision for high speed, affordable and ubiquitous
broadband
1
, the Council has recognised the critical importance of
telecommunications infrastructure to our modern, knowledge-based economy.
New, resource-hungry methods of communication are now an integral part of
people’s lives. High capacity broadband is widely recognised as a key enabler
and is expected to bring significant benefits in areas such as innovation,
productivity, and health and education delivery.
1
A note on terminology – please see Appendix 1 for definitions of key terms.
Page 2
Wellington City needs to rapidly improve access to fast, affordable broadband to
overcome the disadvantages of its remoteness from the world and maintain
competitiveness. Although more investment is happening, it is not expected at a
rate that will maintain a competitive position. This assessment takes account of
recent regulatory changes and investment announcements by existing
providers.
A range of technologies are capable of delivering high capacity broadband.
Although wireless will play a part, deployment of optical fibre deeper into the
local access network is required, to the roadside cabinet and eventually to
customer premises.
The Council has a number of tools that could influence this situation, such as:
• Direct investment in infrastructure provision, as it does for other essential
networks;
• Changing policy settings to facilitate investment, for example making assets
available or relaxing regulatory controls;
• Advocacy to government for targeted investment that is consistent with
Council actions.
These options are examined in more detail in the paper and a way forward
recommended for each.
To assist with this decision-making a set of principles for the Council’s role are
proposed, including intervening to the least extent necessary; promoting shared
open access infrastructure; and prioritising social and community benefits,
followed by “transformative” economic development benefits. Since the Council
is already a significant provider of network infrastructure and community
assets, there are possibilities to leverage this ownership and expertise.
The challenge then, is to catalyse and accelerate new investment, particularly in
fibre, and provide mechanisms for greater sharing of base-level infrastructure,
without distorting the market or pre-empting private sector investment.
Four key areas are proposed:
(1) Policy changes – making Council assets available free or for nominal
charge, and conducting a shallow and/or micro trenching trial which
would be reviewed for wider applicability on completion – in both cases for
deployment of open access broadband infrastructure.
(2) Progressive establishment of a Council-owned duct network, subject to
approval of full costings.
(3) Advocacy to government for funding support, and for any new trans-
Tasman fibre optic cable to land in Wellington.
(4) Continued development of a business model for possible direct Council
investment in an urban fibre network.
Page 3
Agreement is sought for the parameters that would guide the Council’s role, and
proposals for each of these four areas.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee:
1.
Receive the information.
2.
Note the Vision for high speed, affordable and ubiquitous broadband
agreed on 1 March 2007, and the agreement that Council will have a role
in facilitating provision of broadband infrastructure and developing
demand, with further work to be undertaken on options for implementing
the vision.
3.
Note that in the ensuing months:
a.
A Request for Concept has been issued, 24 responses received, and
this information has been used to:
i.
confirm initial policy analysis of the broadband area;
ii.
identify ways in which WCC could facilitate progress
towards its broadband vision;
iii.
identify potential strategic partners through assessing their
credentials and future plans.
b.
Regular discussions have been held with these partners and with
public sector stakeholders.
c.
A policy framework has been developed to address issues including:
i.
low cost deployment methods (e.g. shallow trenching,
aerial);
ii.
possible District Plan changes;
iii.
use of abandoned pipes and duct installation; and
iv.
greenfields and brownfields development.
d.
A detailed financial model has been prepared to assess the merits of
various options including possible direct Council investment in fibre
infrastructure.
4.
Agree that the parameters guiding the Council’s role in delivering the
broadband vision for Wellington City will be to:
a.
intervene in the broadband market to the least extent necessary;
b.
encourage electronics and services competition (competition at
layers 2 and 3) not infrastructure competition (layers 0 and 1);
c.
focus on initiatives that help deliver social and community benefits,
as well as “transformative” economic development benefits;
d.
leverage ownership and management of Council assets in a way
that balances Council objectives, such as those above, with others
Page 4
such as visual amenity, construction disruption, and effective
management of infrastructure assets;
e.
leverage Council’s existing expertise and experience in management
of Rights of Way (RoW) and infrastructure networks, including
their construction, operation and maintenance using an outsourced
approach.
5.
Agree to the following key changes to advance achievement of the
Council’s broadband Vision:
a.
Making Council assets such as buildings, light poles and unused
pipes and ducts available for nil or nominal charge for deployment
of open access broadband infrastructure.
b.
Conducting a micro and/or shallow trenching trial, for deployment
of open access broadband infrastructure, which would be reviewed
for wider applicability on completion.
c.
Progressive establishment of a Council-owned duct network, subject
to detailed costings being brought to Committee for approval.
d.
Advocacy to government for funding support, and for any new
trans-Tasman fibre optic cable to land in Wellington.
e.
Continued development of a business model for possible direct
Council investment in an urban fibre network.
4. Background
4.1 Council’s ICT Policy and Broadband Vision
This development of the Broadband Vision flows from the Council’s Information
and Communications Technology (ICT) Policy, adopted in June 2006. The
Policy sets out a Council position that:
“electronic information processing technologies including the internet, cellular, digital and
wireless technologies have the ability to enhance enable the city’s economic development,
contribute to the well-being of the community, and enhance and increase engagement in
local democracy”.
The Wellington Regional Strategy has identified broadband as a key enabler of
economic growth and one of seven priorities.
On 1 March 2007, Strategy and Policy Committee (SPC) adopted a Vision for
high capacity broadband connectivity -
"That, by 2012, all of Wellington City will have affordable access to an interactive and
open broadband network capable of supporting applications and services using
integrated layers of voice, video and data, with sufficient two-way capacity in the city,
and out to the world, to meet the ongoing information and communications needs of the
city's residents, businesses, investors and institutions."
- and agreed a key role for Council in developing and owning an implementation
plan for the community to achieve it.
Page 5
A key rationale underpinning Council involvement is that incentives are weak
for the level of private sector investment needed to deliver these outcomes. The
underlying driver is the high cost of base-level infrastructure and the division of
investment across multiple providers. In the face of rapidly rising demand this
has resulted in multiple, inadequate networks, in terms of capacity and/or
coverage.
4.2 Benefits of Broadband – an Update
The evolution of new communications technologies has been very rapid, and
quantifiable evidence of its impact has only been emerging over the past few
years. Ongoing research and feedback has reinforced officers’ assessment in the
1 March 2007 report to SPC – that there is an international consensus on the
benefits of broadband infrastructure and its importance for cities that wish to
compete globally.
High quality broadband infrastructure enables economic development and
increased productivity, transforms the delivery of many social and health
services, and facilitates new forms of community engagement and participation
in public life. Potentially significant environmental benefits are also receiving
attention, such as reduced road congestion because of telecommuting and
reduced international air travel through the use of telepresence (very high
definition) video conferencing.
A significant body of research now exists which has analysed these benefits and
impacts. Some, such as productivity improvements, are readily quantifiable, and
others, such as the benefits of increased e-democracy, relate more to wellbeing
and quality of life and are therefore difficult to put a monetary value on. The
wide range of positive economic, environmental, and social impacts that can be
achieved through high capacity broadband infrastructure are mapped in
Appendix 2.
4.3 National and International Broadband Projects
Over the last year the number of cities and regions in New Zealand and around
the world addressing broadband infrastructure has continued to grow. The
approach taken has varied depending on the specific dynamics of each market
and the ownership and regulatory changes that have led to their current
environment. Privatisation of major telecommunications providers was
common in advanced countries through the ‘80s and ‘90s. However because of
concerns over the pace of new investment, most jurisdictions are considering or
implementing a more active role for the public sector, through regulation, policy
settings or direct investment.
This confirms the earlier assessment that this is an important area for the
Council to be involved in, and a number of projects elsewhere have been
analysed to ensure best practice is being followed. A summary is contained in
the Appendix 3: National and International Broadband Projects.
Page 6
4.4 Developments in the NZ Telecommunications Sector
Recent developments in the New Zealand telecommunications market beg the
question of whether they are sufficient to deliver the type of broadband benefits
described above. They have been assessed for their impact on achievement of
Wellington City’s Broadband Vision. A wider picture is presented, but three of
the critical ones are the operational separation of Telecom, local loop
unbundling process (a significant regulatory change to force sharing of
infrastructure), and the recently announced plans for additional investment by
Telecom.
4.4.1 The Digital Strategy Refresh and central government policy changes
The Digital Strategy is the government’s plan to realise the full potential of new
technologies. It deals with physical infrastructure, the services that run over it
and the skills and confidence of the community in using it. In 2005 the Strategy
included a contestable seed fund to implement different initiatives around the
country, which included $17.9m for infrastructure and $17.4m for community
based projects. 5 out of 11 metro areas received infrastructure funding and are
currently implementing urban fibre loops (see Appendix 3 for details).
Wellington City received $414,000 of community-based funding for the Loop
Project to connect six inner-city schools.
The Government is undertaking a refresh of the Digital Strategy that started last
October in Auckland with the Digital Strategy Summit. The first draft of the
updated Strategy will be released soon and the final in June to guide
development over the next 2 to 3 years.
4.4.2 Telecom
Major changes since this was last reported on are:
Operational separation of Telecom: The release of Telecom's
Undertakings for Operational Separation in accordance with a
determination by the Minister under the Telecommunications Act 2001.
Local loop unbundling: The Commerce Commission has released its
determination of standard terms for access to Telecom's copper local loop
Telecom investment plans: Telecom's late 2007 announcement that it
will invest $1.4b over five years in its network including building fibre to
3,500 roadside cabinets. The plans are binding under the Act and specific
construction must be nominated two years in advance (see Appendix 4 for
Wellington City cabinetisation details).
These developments should have a positive impact on broadband speed and
price by increasing competition in areas where it has been limited and by
building higher capacity infrastructure. However, even in total they will only
result in a modest increase in performance in an environment of rapidly
increasing demand (refer to Appendix 5 for details of testing referenced).
Page 7
This type of regulated sharing of infrastructure is a sensible step for New
Zealand, but is counteracted by drivers for the dominant provider to leverage
their position. They can do this by investing only enough to maintain that
position and by rationing capacity.
A recent report by Internet NZ offers the following opinion:
“The rapid cabinetisation and rollout of DSL based broadband by Telecom (at the behest of
the government) will deliver early broadband on a near national scale and ensure a
reasonable level of capital investment, and has support in many sectors. However, more in
depth analysis shows that this may re-establish Telecom’s monopoly via the broadband
market and may impede competition in the long term, counter to what is required by the
legislation. The establishment of the regulatory environment will take many years yet, and
Telecom will have moved far ahead by the time the new entrants can see adequate stability
in the market.”
In five years time Telecom’s investment plans will only deliver the equivalent of
10% to 20% of the download speeds and 1% to 2% of upload speeds that parts of
some countries such as Japan, France, Germany, and South Korea are achieving
today.
It is therefore the view of Council officers that, even under the best possible
scenario resulting from the implementation of the telecommunications
operational separation provisions and rapid execution of Telecom’s investment
plans, there will still be a gap in the Wellington market for broadband in the
medium term i.e. until approximately 2013 at the earliest.
4.4.3 Other telco investment
Other telecommunications providers have significant investment plans, or have
indicated their likely approach if all the announced initiatives run to their stated
dates – in that situation the broadband situation in Wellington will certainly
improve. However the critical question is whether this will achieve the Vision
that the Council has adopted. The assessment of officers is that it will not, which
is consistent with central government acknowledgement that investments are
required beyond cabinetisation and this is being reflected in policy work on the
Digital Strategy refresh.
Finally it is clear that major wireless operators such as Vodafone, NZ
Communications and Kordia are all looking for open access broadband as they
aspire to be full service competitors to Telecom. This translates into further
latent demand for the type of intervention that the Council is being asked to
support.
5. Achieving the Council’s Broadband Vision
5.1 Development of an Implementation Plan
In March 2007 the Strategy and Policy Committee instructed officers to
Page 8
undertake further work across a number of areas to explore potential roles for
Council including:
a) Issuing a Request for Concept document to engage potential industry
partners in developing implementation options for the vision.
b) Undertaking continuous dialogue with potential industry partners and
relevant business, government and community sector stakeholders.
c) Consulting with the community.
d) Considering policy changes that could be made.
e) Researching the economic, social and environmental benefits of broadband
for Wellington.
f) Surveying MUSH entities (Municipalities, Universities, Schools and
Hospitals) to estimate willingness to pay, future demand and affordability to
pay.
g) Developing a financial model to determine viability and establish critical
success factors.
Of these, d) and e) are reported on elsewhere in this paper, and the balance
below.
5.1.1 Request for Concept process
At the end of April 2007 the Council issued a Request for Concept (RfC),
designed to elicit information and views from the private sector on:
• their financial and technical credentials;
• existing planned investment;
• appropriate business models and financing options;
• technical implementation options; and
• the role of the Council and other stakeholders in achieving the Council's
broadband objectives.
24 detailed responses were received from a mix of network operators, potential
investors or anchor tenants, wireless providers, technology partners, network
constructors and consultants. This included all the major existing infrastructure
owners. A significant amount of valuable information was received and formally
analysed by a Council Evaluation Team comprising officers and an external
consultant. The quality of the responses and willingness to participate was
heartening, with several participants providing comprehensive, confidential
information about their plans and ideas.
Respondents highlighted the following points, which have been incorporated in
further development of broadband options:
They confirmed the importance of broadband and the need to look for new
ways to accelerate investment.
Page 9
The need for facilitated access to WCC infrastructure such as street poles and
buildings.
The need for policy changes by Council to accelerate deployment,
implementation timeframes and reduce infrastructure building costs.
The different roles they could play as network integrator, constructor,
operator, technology partner, potential anchor tenant, or catalyst agent.
The way in which each party should contribute, in terms of a public private
partnership, according to respective core capabilities and competencies.
The leadership role the Council needs to play to endorse and promote the
network, including promotion on the demand side.
The importance of anchor tenants.
The need for private investors to get an adequate return on investment.
Adherence to a basic principle that if a private sector partner was making a
significant investment and taking risk, that entitled them to enjoy any
returns that flowed and they would expect a strong influence in the direction
of any joint project.
Some expectation of Council funding to reduce the current investment “gap”.
A plea to maintain a high level of communication and dialogue as options
were developed, and avoid a “tendering mode mentality” where discussion
was curtailed.
5.1.2 Engaging with key business, government and community sector stakeholders
Stakeholders have been engaged throughout the project for promotion,
information sharing and the testing of concepts. The current key stakeholders
include the following:
• The Broadband Advisory Group, comprising representatives from TUANZ,
Internet NZ, the Chamber of Commerce, and industry experts.
• Potential key stakeholders, including the major incumbents, identified
through the RfC process.
• Potential anchor tenants (MUSH entities) such as Capital and Coast District
Health Board and the primary health providers they are associated with.
• Central government stakeholders including State Services Commission,
Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of Education.
• Local government partners and a variety of community groups including
community associations, Wellington Loop, the Tech Execs, and Senior Net.
5.1.3 Consulting with the community
In 2007 public consultation on the Broadband project occurred through
submissions received on the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2007/08 as well as the
Residents’ Satisfaction Survey.
Page 10
Draft Annual Plan – As part of the 2007/08 DAP consultation, residents
were asked for their feedback on the Council’s Broadband vision. 18
submissions were received by the Council regarding broadband and more than
60% were positive about the Council’s involvement.
Residents’ Satisfaction Survey – A May 2007 telephone survey on the
Annual Plan showed 53 percent of residents surveyed were in favour of (17
percent opposed) the Council’s involvement in access to affordable broadband.
Note that both of these consultations spoke generally about the Council’s
possible role in broadband and did not put forward a specific proposal with
costs. However a central assumption of the proposed plans for broadband is
that be broadly cost-neutral for Council. The plan for communication and
consultation going forward is included in section 5.5.
5.1.4 Development of a financial model
A peer-reviewed financial model has been built as a tool to help understand the
economics and the viability of the broadband infrastructure market, and in
particular an urban fibre network serving MUSH entities in Wellington city. As
part of this a survey of MUSH entities was undertaken to determine their
willingness to pay for high speed services. The following diagram summarizes
financial model components:
Components of the financial model
Variables and assumptions
include:
SUPPLY:
Capex and
Opex
DEMAND:
Revenues and
capital
contributions
Variables and assumptions
include:
Monthly revenues
and installation fees
from end users
Anchor tenants
contributions
WCC contributions
several deployment
technologies
Financial model
existing infrastructure
providers
contributions
Central government
support (funding
and demand
aggregation)
Establish
financial
viability
Improving resilience
of the network
Determine service
level
Determine tariffs
level
Page 11
5.2 Rationale and Parameters for the Council’s Role
The justifications for public sector (central and local government) intervention
include the need to: address market failure in the areas of insufficient
investment and the resulting low level of services offered; ensure equitable
distribution of welfare gains; and ensure regional competitiveness.
The knowledge base built from the results of the work described in section 5.1
has fed into development of five recommended parameters for the Council’s role
in achieving its broadband vision. These have been used to consider the extent
to which Council should intervene, and how it should structure any
intervention.
These recommended parameters are that the Council will:
1.
Intervene in the broadband market to the least extent necessary
to achieve the vision for broadband in Wellington. Although interventions
will focus on infrastructure, Council is also involved in some demand side
initiatives and may consider demand aggregation activities.
2.
Focus on initiatives and policy changes that help deliver the social
and community benefits of broadband (i.e. to MUSH-type entities) as well
as “transformative” economic development benefits for Wellington. The
Council believes that these are most likely to occur when the city’s
broadband infrastructure is:
Open Access
Affordable
Offers symmetrical connections
High speed, removing capacity as a constraint, and
Ubiquitous.
3.
Encourage services competition not infrastructure competition,
based on the assumption that shared open access infrastructure is
preferable to duplicated closed access infrastructure, allowing the private
sector to focus on product and service differentiation and competition.
4.
Leverage our ownership and management of Council assets
across all business units and Council controlled organisations, where this
will assist delivering the broadband vision. Other objectives of Council
should not be unduly impacted by the use of assets for broadband roll out.
5.
Leverage Council’s existing expertise and experience in the:
Management of Rights of Way (RoW)
Management of infrastructure networks (i.e. water and waste water,
Page 12
roads)
Construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure using a
management contracts, rather than direct provision.
Layer Analysis
The table below explains the layers within a telecommunications system:
Infrastructure
Layer
Component of
Broadband Network
Role description
Equivalent Road
Network component
Layer 0
•
Right of way
(overhead or
underground)
•
Trenches
•
Ducts
Providing access to:
•
Duct or other pipes
•
Co-location facilities (e.g. cabinets,
server rooms)
•
Aerial infrastructure (e.g. poles,
trolley bus lines)
•
Rights of way (e.g. rail/road reserve)
•
Right of way
•
Road reserve
•
Poles and holes
Layer 1
•
Dark fibre
•
Radio masts
•
Light waves
•
Dark fibre leasing
•
Wavelength leasing
•
Streets
•
Footpaths
•
Bridges
Layer 2
•
Ethernet switches
•
Own electronics on the end of fibre
•
Access is supplied to providers as
VLANs, ATM or similar technology
•
Traffic lights
•
Signage
•
Road markings
Layer 3 +
•
Voice services
•
TV and video
•
Internet Access
•
Provides true service to the premises
•
Ownership and operation customer
premises equipment.
•
Cars
•
Trucks
•
Taxis/couriers
Infrastructure service providers (layers 0 and 1) own passive infrastructure
assets which connect end users to the network and interconnect end users with
each other. They operate only these base-level assets, and ideally focus on
management of them with investment under a utility model with low return
over long return cycles. Network service providers supply active opto-electronics
to operate on these assets. They deliver bit-stream type services to end users
and may or may not have a retail relationship with them. Service providers (also
called application service providers) develop and distribute applications across
one or more networks.
The principles above imply Council’s level of intervention would be most
effective at the Right of Way (layer 0) and Infrastructure (layer 1) levels, limiting
the duplication of infrastructure and encouraging electronics and services
competition from the commercial sector.
Page 13
5.3 Options for Intervention
5.3.1 A stepwise rollout
Telecommunications networks are clearly large and complex, and they may be
some components where market-led competition is appropriate or will deliver
desired outcomes. An example is the core CBD, where the density of customers
provides sufficient business for multiple high capacity networks to operate
2
.
In addition, a staged approach to implementation is likely to be attractive to
reduce risk and allow a focus on high-priority public entities. Drawing on earlier
thinking, as well as the information provided through the RfC and input from
industry experts, a three-stage model is proposed, comprising:
Promotion of optical fibre deployment deeper into the local access network
to provide backhaul capacity and allow linkages to MUSH entities;
Potentially, wireless/cellular services that delivered new services using a
backbone network for high capacity connections;
Further development of fibre to the home (FTTH) options at a later stage,
probably initially through a pilot
3
.
The challenge will be to catalyse and accelerate new investment, particularly in
fibre, and provide a vehicle for greater sharing of base-level infrastructure,
without distorting the market or pre-empting private sector investment. Clearly,
the major areas of community benefit, such as health, education and
sustainability, should be a focus. And previous analysis has shown the
desirability of this stepwise process to reduce risk and gain the maximum
performance from existing infrastructure.
5.3.2 Council role
Broadly speaking, options for the Council include:
1.
A purely advocacy and facilitation role.
The Council is already involved in this area, through its history with CityLink,
CafeNet (CityLink’s wireless service in selected Wellington cafes), and
promoting a knowledge economy in Wellington. Where private sector providers
wish to deploy new infrastructure, Council takes a proactive approach to
facilitate this, whilst being mindful of other policy objectives such as disruption
to the transport network resulting from road openings.
2
Noting, of course, that competition in the Wellington City CBD was accelerated by the City Council’s role
in the establishment of CityLink in 1995.
3
In the March 2007 paper, an intermediate step of fibre to the node/cabinet (FTTN or FTTC) was mooted.
This has not been separated out as an option in this discussion because of the fundamental differences in
economics between single large customers and residential customers. FTTN deployments would need to be
considered as part of residential options.
Page 14
This role will continue and could be strengthened in some areas, such as
advocacy to government to accelerate regulatory changes and investigation of
new public sector investment in broadband infrastructure. A new trans-Tasman
cable has been mooted and one possibility would be to deploy from Sydney to
Wellington which would be highly beneficial for the City. In a direct financial
sense, Wellington customers could reduce their international access charges, as
well as charges for the Wellington-Auckland link. Indirectly, a high capacity
connection would increase our status as an important digital hub and location.
Although it is unlikely that the Council would have any financial role in such a
cable, it is recommended that the Council advocate strongly to government and
potential investors that any new trans-Tasman cable land in Wellington.
Overall, advocacy and facilitation is not considered sufficient alone to achieve
the broadband vision without more active intervention. In key areas such as
facilitating the sharing existing of infrastructure, the current delivery model
drives providers to leverage their infrastructure networks to their own
advantage and competitors’ disadvantage.
2.
Policy changes and making existing assets available (at nil or
nominal charge).
The Council was perhaps a leader in this area, when in 1995 it made trolley bus
wires available at nominal charge to CityLink to set up a high-speed fibre based
network in the CBD. Later when new capacity had been established, the Council
sold its share (it was one of many shareholders) as the company required more
capital to expand and was by then a self-sustaining commercial venture.
Policy changes could include relaxation of the rules around new technologies
such as shallow trenching, and requiring new subdivisions to have ducting for
fibre.
These options involve little cash cost to Council, but important considerations
are the impact on other Council policies and the “fairness” to other providers of
making a community-owned asset available for financial gain. It is likely that
the possible risks of options like shallow trenching could be limited by requiring
deployments under new rules to be for provision of open access services only,
which would encourage sharing of base-level infrastructure.
These changes are the major next step recommended for working towards the
Council’s broadband vision, as they are seen as providing a more attractive
environment for additional investment.
3.
Subsidising existing providers to deliver the services required.
Since Council has identified some key areas of need, a simple measure would be
to subsidise delivery of high-speed services to those users. Existing telcos could
provide those services, or even invest in some additional capacity against a long
Page 15
term contract.
Unfortunately in an environment where capacity is a scarce resource, it is in the
interests of telcos to ration it. Even if the additional capacity is available, profit
maximisation incentives lead to constraint in the market through higher prices.
This is entirely rational and commendable behaviour from the point of view of a
shareholder, who are the group telcos are accountable to, but may not meet the
wider needs of the community. So this option is rejected on the basis of not
being able to demonstrate value for money
4. Council investment in new, supplementary fibre capacity.
This would be a new role for Council, and is based on the need discussed above
and market failure to address it. It would take account of the principles for
intervention set out in section 5.2. If structured to provide services to, first and
foremost, MUSH-type entities, it would be operating in an area of low interest
to telcos and where the case for intervention to deliver high levels of public
benefits was strongest.
However this option is not recommended at this stage because of the potential
for option 2 above to deliver significant new investment, and current
government policy around additional broadband funding. Because of the
priority given to health and education outcomes, significant support from
government would be warranted and this appears unlikely in the short term.
However, continued work on business models is recommended to maintain this
option for the future should it be required. And importantly, progressive
establishment of a Council-owned duct network is recommended which could
be achieved over time at modest cost if done in conjunction with existing works.
A duct network would encourage sharing of base-level infrastructure and
provide a valuable long-term option for possible Council investment – it would
be a necessary component of any urban fibre network.
5.3.3 Proposed approach
From the options above four key areas are proposed:
(1) Policy changes – making Council assets available free or for nominal charge,
and conducting a shallow and/or micro trenching trial which would be
reviewed for wider applicability on completion – in both cases for
deployment of open access broadband infrastructure.
(2) Progressive establishment of a Council-owned duct network, subject to
approval of full costings.
(3) Advocacy to government for funding support, and for any new trans-Tasman
fibre optic cable to land in Wellington.
(4) Continued development of a business model for possible direct Council
investment in an urban fibre network.
Page 16
These are discussed in more detail below.
5.4 Recommended Options
5.4.1 Policy changes
Overview
As instructed, officers have considered a range of policy options to facilitate
broadband development. As always, this involves a balance between Council
objectives, such as the trade-off between overhead deployment and the visual
impact of these cables. Although adverse impacts should always be avoided as
much as possible, the unequivocal reasoning in this paper is that significantly
greater weight should be given to the wider benefits of broadband to the city.
Conceptually, this is similar to the trade-off made between the benefits of café
seating on footpaths and the restriction of pedestrian access.
As stated in the March 2007 report to this Committee, the Council can use its
regulatory and policy making roles to further its broadband vision. By either
adjusting current rules or policy or creating new ones that enable it to leverage
off its property assets and its own or others’ network infrastructure, the Council
can address the cost of deploying fibre – reducing the cost associated with stand
alone trenching (the main deployment method currently allowed by the
Council)
The following changes are recommended. Note that overheading, ducting new
developments, and RMA process changes, are discussed in more detail in
Appendix 6, and the balance below. New national telecommunications
infrastructure rules (National Environmental Standards for
Telecommunications (NES) and the National Code of Practice for Working in
the Road) are dealt with in Appendix 3.
• Access to Council buildings and structures would be made available
for nil or nominal charge, providing the services delivered are open access.
• Laying fibre in existing Council pipes will be more fully investigated on
the same basis as above.
• Overhead or above-ground deployment will remain allowable under
current District Plan rules, but progressive undergrounding and provision of
a single open access cable will be strongly encouraged.
• Micro or shallow trenching technologies would be subject to a defined
trial to assess benefits and risks, and the trial would only be allowed for open
access purposes.
• Greenfield sites will be ducted with fibre-optic cable as the standard level
of service.
• Further investigation will be undertaken on methods to ensure future-
proofing of new and refurbished buildings.
Page 17
• Officers will investigate the establishment of a stronger telecommunications
infrastructure team for the consenting process, so that a more proactive
approach can be implemented.
Use of existing assets
The Council has a current pricing policy around the usage of its property
(including road reserve) and assets (including lighting poles, traffic lights,
buildings and water tanks) for broadband/telecommunications infrastructure. A
critical factor is ownership permission, as distinct from District Plan or other
permission (for example under a reserve’s management plan).
That ownership permission can contain conditions around the resulting services
being open access. This would encourage shared infrastructure with the
corollary that some potentially negative outcomes, such as a multiple antennae
on buildings, would be curtailed. A condition of permission for a second or
subsequent operator could be that they have shown how they have investigated
the use of existing open access equipment. Note that the District Plan controls
the actual size and location of equipment.
Abandoned pipes
It is recommended that, in principle, a policy be adopted that abandoned pipes
be made available as ducting for telecommunications usage. Usage would be
subject to appropriate arrangements around liability, maintenance and cost to
make pipes serviceable. Since fibre optic cable is inert, unaffected by water and
usually in a sheathed cable, even a poor quality pipe could be useful as long as it
provides an access path.
The Council has over 100 kms of abandoned or decommissioned pipes that
could potentially be utilised as empty ducting. Investigation is required to fully
identify the quality of abandoned pipes and their alignment in the roads, as it is
possible that some pipes would have collapsed, been damaged, or be unusable
due to their depth, condition and/or alignment. Some of the minimal lengths of
abandoned pipes might also make them non-viable for usage.
As part of this policy, officers would also actively manage a GIS database
showing the location and condition of known abandoned pipes.
Laying fibre in existing infrastructure networks
Technology has been developed that can enable fibre cable to be deployed
within existing pipes – such as water, stormwater and sewerage. Mechanical
equipment is used to feed the fibre through the pipes and attach it to the “soffit”
(ceiling) of the pipe, or it can simply be laid loose in the bottom of the pipe if
only water is passing through it.
The Council’s initial investigations indicate that the stormwater network, if any,
may be best suited to such technology as there are few public health risks
Page 18
associated with this service and it is not pressurised (like water). Our
stormwater pipes are, however, narrow and investigation is underway on:
• whether or not the technology could be deployed within them;
• what the potential maintenance issues would be; and
• understanding how the alignment of the stormwater network would work
with optimum telecommunications alignment.
Shallow or micro trenching
Currently, Council rules and policy mainly enable broadband infrastructure (via
cabling) to be deployed either under the ground in traditional trenches or, in
certain conditions, strung overhead between poles.
New technologies (such as “shallow” or “micro” trenching) potentially provide
significantly cheaper, alternative deployment methods – as outlined in the
following comparison:
Type of Fibre
Deployment
Estimated Cost per
metre
Overheading
$32
Micro-trenching
$40-130
Directional Drilling
$175
Traditional Trenching
$300
Currently, however, this technology cannot meet requirements in the Council’s
Code of Practice for Working in the Road, as cable cannot be laid to a minimum
depth of 600mm or 900mm (depending on where it is being placed in the
roadway)
4
, and trench and surface reinstatement techniques are not always
suitable to ensure the ongoing viability of the road.
Through micro or shallow trenching, a cable is typically laid at a depth of 200-
300mm, in a trench approximately 100mm wide. The machine that installs the
network is also able to reseal the road.
If the Council allowed this type of trenching above the minimum depths liability
issues would need to be fully defined, as the cost of any subsequent relaying at
full depth would be very high and damage may occur to other utilities,
particularly ones with lateral connections that may be laid at higher depths
within the roading asset. It is also possible that the Council would need to
require all utilities and laterals to be well marked out and hand excavated,
which would significantly increase the cost of micro-trenching to network
providers.
4
Note: these are depths that are unlikely to change with the proposed National Code of Practice
for Working on the Road, which is currently being developed.
Page 19
Saw cutting is very narrow micro-trenching (10-12mm), where the cable is
directly buried in the ground. The details of such technology are unclear, though
it would be achieved by a hand-held machine. This option is likely to have issues
around appropriate road resealing to fill a trench this size, running the risk of
damaging the integrity of the road surface, a higher likelihood of damage to
other networks and laterals, and the difficulty of repairs to a direct-buried cable.
Despite all this, the potential cost savings make these technologies very
attractive and they could facilitate significant additional broadband deployment.
To fully examine the risks a defined trial is proposed that would only be
available to an open access provider.
5.4.2 Establishment of a duct network
It is recommended that a Council-owned duct network be established, using
existing unused pipes as a starting point and laying duct in conjunction with
other road works as its main method of implementation. This would mean a
policy that ducting should be laid by or on behalf of the Council whenever the
Council or a third party provider digs a trench as part of utilities provision,
roadworks or a road opening notice
5
. Each specific situation would be assessed
on its merits, taking into account factors like the suitability of trench alignments
(where designed primarily for another purpose), and the extent of any
additional costs due to separation requirements.
Such a policy takes a long-term view of the broadband network – and the end
focus on a FTTH network. It could be implemented progressively dependent on
funding and assessment of progress towards a network with meaningful reach,
but working to a master plan.
A duct network would encourage sharing of the right-of-way under the road and
could over time reduce the amount of duplicated infrastructure installation (and
associated road works). It would maintain important options for the Council,
should any Council-owned urban fibre network be progressed in the future,
since ducting would naturally be a component for any fibre build.
The Council digs every year to maintain, replace and upgrade parts of its water,
sewerage, stormwater, roading and footpath networks. While not all trenches
will be in an optimal alignment for a telecommunications network (which is best
placed on both sides of the road), some, such as the water network, are able to
do so.
The water network also has a more substantial scheduled replacement plan than
the other networks (i.e. the sewerage and stormwater networks tend to be
replaced on more of a reactive basis than a planned one). Approximately 10-
5
A similar policy is being considered by other councils including the Waitakere, Hutt, Upper
Hutt, and Porirua city councils.
Page 20
14km of replacement is planned in each year from 07/08 through to 09/10.
A new initiative covering the cost of laying duct will need to be developed. The
network to be provided could be as simple as just providing the ducting that a
fibre cable could be fed through, or it could be made increasingly complex by
also providing for access points (chambers, vaults and pits) and housing
connections – in view of the ultimate goal of FTTH. Based on the complexity of
the network design, a first cut of base costs (i.e. excluding the cost of trenching)
is estimated as follows:
Costs per km
Most
basic
With
access
points
With house
connections
uPVC pipes (and seal)
$13,468
$13,468
$13,468
Vaults and pits
0
$8,000
$8,000
House connectors
0
0
$2,100
Total
$13,468
$21,468
$23,568
X 10kms per year
$134,680
$214,680
$235,680
Utility operators are able to dig in the roads by right. Currently utilities
(including telecommunications companies) are required to inform each other
when a trench is being dug, so they have the option of sharing the costs – which
also helps the Council ensure roads are being opened in a coordinated way,
reducing disruption to road users and the potential for damage to the roads.
Further advice is being sought on the:
• mechanism the Council could use to place Council-owned ducting in
trenches dug by third parties and have it vested to council
• level to which the Council would need to contribute to the cost – i.e. for
ducting, wider trenching, increased traffic management, etc.
5.4.3 Advocacy and facilitation
Councils have a natural role in advocating for more investment in broadband
infrastructure in their communities. The wide range of benefits to the
community make this a high priority – with the theme that telecommunications
infrastructure is becoming the “roads and rail of the 21
st
century”.
It is therefore recommended that the Council continue to make the case to
government that more investment should occur, probably with additional
investment from the Crown to recognise national significance, and that councils
are natural local partners. The collective local government investment of $80-
odd billion in (primarily network) infrastructure demonstrates the existing role
in providing essential networks.
Page 21
The government has also identified the need for additional undersea capacity,
and when this happens there are options for it to come ashore at Auckland,
Wellington, or Invercargill. A landing point other than Auckland would enhance
network resilience, make additional cost effective capacity available to the
region and increase our status as an important digital hub and location. It is
recommended that the Council advocate to government and potential investors
that any new trans-Tasman fibre optic cable land in Wellington.
Engaging Central Government as a partner adds important strengths to the
broadband project, in addition to any funding contribution it might make. These
include the ability to aggregate public sector demand – demand aggregation in
education and health sectors is essential to guarantee sustainability and
generate economic transformation.
5.4.4 Business model development
Development of a business model has been a key component of the broadband
project. It has enabled a deeper understanding of the economics of fibre
deployment, which is valuable when considering options like direct purchase of
services for public good entities, and possible Council investment in an urban
fibre network.
The model has assembled detailed information on likely costs and revenues, the
latter based on a survey of 244 MUSH entities to evaluate the existing demand
for broadband in the City, and determine their interest, willingness and ability
to pay. The cost structure for deployment was calculated from a route-by-route
analysis and GIS locations for major target customers.
This work showed the critical importance of access to Council assets and
facilities in order to reduce capital costs; central government support which
would be needed in the form of demand aggregation for health and education
providers plus funding assistance; and partnership with a substantial private
sector operator or operators to bring existing fibre infrastructure, relevant
assets, customer base and expertise.
It is recommended that this model continue to be refined, to maintain this
option for the future should it be required. Implementation is not recommended
because of the potential for the options above to deliver significant new
investment, and current government policy around additional broadband
funding.
5.5 Communication and Consultation Plan
It is recommended that:
• general, city-wide consultation be undertaken on the proposals outlined in
this paper; and
Page 22
• targeted consultation be undertaken concurrently to ensure that identified
stakeholders and interested individuals and groups have the opportunity to
respond to the Council’s proposals.
The consultation plan (attached at Appendix 7) outlines the key messages the
consultation will have, identifies existing and additional stakeholders who will
be asked to respond to the Council’s proposals and provides a timeline for the
consultation.
6. Conclusion
The case for high quality communications to support modern lifestyles,
productivity and innovation is now well established. Council’s Broadband Vision
recognises the importance of fast, affordable broadband to the future
competitiveness of the city.
This paper examines a number of options to advance the Vision, and
recommends some specific policy changes and further work in some areas.
Further costings and analysis will be reported back to the Strategy and Policy
Committee over the next 2-3 months, and a close watching brief kept on
national developments in the telecommunications sector.
Contact Officers:
Paul Desborough
Manager Strategy Unit
Carolina Rodriguez
Senior Strategic Advisor
Adele Gibson
Senior Policy Advisor
Page 23
Supporting Information
1) Strategic Fit / Strategic Outcome
The recommendations in the paper support Council’s overall vision of
Creative Wellington – Innovation Capital, and are a strong fit with the
economic development strategy .
2) LTCCP/Annual Plan reference and long term financial impact
The project is referenced by. The changes indicated here may lead to an
increase in capital expenditure in the 08/09 financial year related to
establishment of a duct network, but final costings for this still need to be
developed.
3) Treaty of Waitangi considerations
No direct implications for Treaty of Waitangi considerations.
4) Decision-Making
This is not a significant decision in terms of the Local Government Act 2002.
5) Consultation
a)General Consultation
Some non-specific consultation has already been carried out through the
07/08 Draft Annual Plan process and the Resident’s satisfaction survey.
This is reported on in the paper.
The report also contains a proposed consultation plan as part of the future
development of this project.
b) Consultation with Maori
No specific consultation with Maori.
6) Legal Implications
Specific legal advice will be sought on some aspects related to the
recommendations.
7) Consistency with existing policy
The recommendations in the report are consistent with existing policy, and
in some areas amend that policy to better drive overall Council objectives.
Page 24
APPENDIX 1
References and Definition of Key Terms
• Internet NZ- Cabinetisation and Local Loop Unbundling-The Way Forward, 14
th
January 2008
http://www.internetnz.net.nz/media/2008/cabinetisation
• The NZ Institute- Creating a Weightless Economy: Positioning New Zealand to
compete in the global economy, September 2007
www.nzinstitute.org
• The NZ Institute- A broadband strategy for New Zealand: Why world-class
communications infrastructure matters and how we can get it, September 2007
www.nzinstitute.org
• The NZ Institute – Defining a Broadband Aspiration: How much does Broadband
matter and what does New Zealand need? , September 2007
www.nzinstitute.org
• Department of Internal Affairs - The Digital Strategy: Report on Progress 2007
http://www.digitalstrategy.govt.nz/upload/CaseStudies/DigitalStrategy_Reporton
Progress_2007web.pdf
• Dirk van de Woude- An Overview of Fibre, November 2007
http://www.citynet.nl/upload/FttX-in-Europe-29june2007.pdf
• CTC- Fiber Optics for Government and Public Broadband: A Feasibility Study ,
Prepared for the City and County of San Francisco, January 2007.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dtis/tech_connect/SFFiberFeasibility.pdf
Definition of Key Terms
Abandoned pipes – WCC has identified over 100km of water, sewer and stormwater
pipes that may be potentially useful in laying fibre ducting.
Active Opto-Electronics – are electrical-to-optical or optical-to-electrical transducers
which convert one type of energy to another for information transfer. Network service
providers install these electronics to ‘light up’ the dark or passive fibre.
ADSL (Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line) – This is the most common fixed connection
for broadband and it uses the existing copper lines. It enables faster data transmission over
telephone lines than a conventional dial-up modem can provide. The asymmetric nature of
the connection means that the downstream speed is faster than the upstream speed.
ADSL 2+– extends the capability of basic ADSL by doubling the number of downstream
bits. The data rates can be as high as 24 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream
depending on the distance from the DSLAM to the customer's home.
Anchor tenant – a privately owned network, with the city agreeing to become the anchor
tenant by agreeing to buy a minimum annual level of services. The city grants the private
company use of public assets and also agrees to be a major customer of the network (an
Page 25
anchor tenant). In exchange the city is compensated for use of public assets. The agreement
contains a public benefits section that may include a share of revenue or limited free access
to the network.
Backbone network – transports massive volumes of data traffic around cities, and
between cities and countries. There is no single backbone network, rather many networks
in which service providers exchange traffic with other providers.
Backhaul – the process of transmitting data from multiple dispersed points (e.g.
households, businesses, cell phone towers) to the central telecommunications network,
usually using fibre cables.
Bitstream capacity – the provision of transmission capacity (upward/downward
channels may be asymmetric) between an end-user connected to a telephone connection
and the point of interconnection available to the new entrant.
BOOT Model (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer) – a model of private ownership where the
Council could give a contract to a successful bidder to build own and also operate the
network. After 10 years (or a set time) the ownership would be transferred back to the
Council.
Broadband – a generic term for infrastructure that allows communication and
connection to the internet – ‘high capacity’ and ‘high speed’ refer to much the same thing,
as communication across a network relates to a flow of data.
Cabinets/ Cabinetisation – cabinets containing telecommunications equipment can be
installed on kerbsides. Makes wireless internet access easier.
Copper local loop – the last few hundred metres of copper wire cables.
Duct network – a network of underground plastic pipes that provide a right-of-way in
the road corridor and through which fibre optic cables can be passed.
High speed broadband – a broadband service which delivers data at rates capable of
supporting next generation services, such as interactive video, broadcast-quality television
and videoconferencing. This is usually at speeds greater than 1.5 megabits per second
(Mbps)
Incumbent – a term used to describe existing companies often first established as
regulated monopolies.
JV (Joint Venture) – is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake
economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing
equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise. A
possible ownership model that the Council could consider.
Layers – the Council can have ownership and intervene at different levels of network
infrastructure (i.e. layers). Possible ownership levels are at Layer 0, Layer 0 +1, Layer 0+1
+ 2, and Layer 0+1+2+3. As we move up in the layers, the control the Council could
exercise over the network increases and so do the risks.
Local loop unbundling (LLU) – opening the final few kilometres of copper cabling,
from the telephone exchanges to each house or premises, to competition so that any
telecommunications company can run its services over the copper wires.
Page 26
Mbps (megabits per second) – a measure of data transfer speed. (A megabit is equal to
one million bits).
Micro-trenching – a method of deploying fibre underground. Undertaken by a large
machine that is able to create a trench approximately 100mm wide, lay a duct in it, and
then reseal the road.
MUSH Backbone – (Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals) a backbone
fibre connection that would connect all entities such as primary and secondary schools,
hospitals, medical centres, libraries and pools, service centres, community centres;
university sites and research entities, CRI locations; and other community facilities such as
fire stations and civil defence centres.
Next Generation Network – a packet-based network able to provide services including
Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, Quality of
service-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are
independent from underlying transport-related technologies. It offers unrestricted access
by users to different service providers. It supports generalized mobility which will allow
consistent and ubiquitous provision of services to users.
Node – being the first aggregation point for telephone lines from end-users' premises –
usually a roadside cabinet or local telephone exchange. Extending fibre to the node allows
higher broadband speeds (even though it does not extend all the way to the premises)
because its performance does not decline as steeply over distance as does copper's.
Open Access – a system that allows any telecommunications operator to provide its
services and applications over the broadband infrastructure – including the backbone, and
the connections to each home or premises. This is in contrast to vertically integrated
systems where the owner of the infrastructure can restrict who runs services over it and
therefore prevent competition.
Overheading – cabling that can be attached to the overhead wires e.g. trolleybus lines in
Wellington. By far the cheapest deployment method, however not a long-term solution.
PPP – ‘Public Private Partnership’ a model of ownership.
Rights of Way (ROW) – Council’s right of access to areas e.g. ducts
Saw Cutting – a method of deploying fibre underground. Very narrow micro-trenching
(10-12mm), where the cable is directly buried in the ground.
SMEs – small and medium- sized enterprises
Staged Network Architecture – WCC has proposed a three component model for
Broadband development comprising an urban fibre network, a wireless/ cellular network,
and further development of FTTH options.
UFN- (Urban Fibre Network) – a conduit that provides a path for electronic data
between buildings and organisations within the urban area. It is an enabling tool to allow
an increased volume of data to flow at a faster speed. Urban fibre networks are quite
common throughout the world, usually with a substantial amount of central or local
government funding involved.
Undergrounding – burying cables in the ground. A long term favoured solution.
Page 27
Upstream/upload and downstream/download – this refers to the speed of the
broadband connection in each direction. Downstream/download refers to speeds from an
external point to your Internet connection. Download is typically faster than the upstream
speed (from your Internet connection out to the rest of the Internet).
Wi-Fi – describes the generic wireless interface of mobile computing devices, such as
laptops in local area networks. A person with a Wi-Fi enabled device such as a PC, cell
phone or PDA can connect to the Internet when in proximity of an access point. The region
covered by one or several access points is called a hotspot. Hotspots can range from a
single room to many square miles of overlapping hotspots.
WiMAX – Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, is a telecommunications
technology aimed at providing wireless data over long distances in a variety of ways, from
point-to-point links to full mobile cellular type access.
Wireless – a term used to describe telecommunications in which electromagnetic waves
(rather than some form of wire) carry the signal over part or the entire communication
path.
Page 28
APPENDIX 2
Benefits of Broadband
The New Zealand Institute recently launched a research project with the
objective of identifying the potential economic benefits to New Zealand of
deploying world class communications infrastructure. The national economic
benefits from unconstrained broadband are estimated at NZ$ 2.7 to 4.4 b p.a.:
New Zealand Institute: Required Speed (Mbps) Vs. Annual Economic Value
This translates to potential benefits for the Wellington region of $400m -
$650m, and the city $250m - $400m (on basis of region and city shares of
national GDP). Note that this is an increase of about 0.25% in GDP, and the
high connectivity in the CBD provided by CityLink may have already delivered
some of these benefits.
The following diagrams map quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts:
Page 29
Positive environmental impacts
Positive environmental impacts
Transport
Travel substitution
Work from home
Telepresence
Transport
Advanced traffic
control systems
Transport
Manage traffic peak
times
Home shopping
Real time information
systems on public transport
Coordinating traffic signals,
detecting and managing
incidents
Electronic
payments banking
Flexibility of travel
time
Savings in roads, fossil fuels and energy produced
Urban
development
energy efficiency
and sustainability
Sharing resources
Waste reduction in
production chains
Enablers
Achieving
Well-being
Reduce travel cost
Lower carbon emissions
Reduced traffic time
Less stress
Better balance
home/work time
Better use of natural
resources
Sustainable building
Reduced
environmental costs
Positive economic impacts
Positive economic impacts
Innovation and
creation
New products and
services
New research tools
Digital innovation
and transformation
Productivity
more competitive
economy
Growth
Increase jobs and
workforce
small firms to
expand their R&D
capabilities
Increases workers and
machinery efficiency
Better decision making
tools
Better knowledge
management tools
Increases work
opportunities
Improves scalability and
sizable issues – makes
viable the unviable
Empties global markets
efficiently
Businesses
Improve the
economics of the firm
Facilitates access to
larger markets
Decreases transaction
costs
Makes more flexible
supply chains
Enables more people to
work – elderly, disabled
and young workers
Enablers
Achieving
Well-being
Increases tax revenues
Higher wages
Economic
competitiveness
Economic growth
Lower prices
Increases profits
Page 30
Positive social impacts
Positive social impacts
Cultural Well-
being
greater participation of
disabled, elderly and
young into the economy
and society
Educational
Health
Increases opportunities to learn
Reduces cost of education
Preserves multicultural
heritage and ethnicity
Better access to medical records
Improves preventive care
Increases in-home supported
care
Increases students engagement
and willingness to learn
Increases flexibility to the
learning process
Patient monitoring -reduces
admissions
Improves research tools
Remote diagnosis and
consultation
Improves access to remote health
training
Reduces cost of
professional training
Enablers
Achieving
Well-being
Strengthens social identity
Reduces social gaps
More inclusive
Improves productivity
Improves staff
professional
development
More efficient diagnosis
Reduces patients
inconvenience and
discomfort
Improves quality
Improves resources
allocation
ntinuation
Positive social impacts.. co
Positive social impacts.. continuation
Social and
recreation
Better community facilities
Better services in libraries
More recreational options
More learning and research tools
Greater cultural exposure
Better emergency
connectivity
Enablers
Achieving
Well-being
Improves citizen engagement
Safer City
Stronger sense of place
More social cohesion
Improves resources
allocation
Government to citizens
Governance
Government to business
Government to
Government
Internal efficiency and
effectiveness
Better asset management
Monitoring management
systems
Improves consultation
and communication
More technological savvy people
Socially connected city
Media and
entertainment
Improved audio and
video quality (digital)
Access to huge range
of entertainment
Music swapping ,
online gaming
Access to
international, national
and local events
More liveable
Better co
world
Better employment
prospects
nnected to the
Page 31
APPENDIX 3
National and International Broadband Projects
New telecommunications infrastructure rules
Central government is currently in the process of establishing country-wide rules that will provide consistency and remove perceived impediments to
deployment of telecommunications infrastructure:
The National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications (NES) will override all councils’ district plans – except for where the
community has identified specific values it wants to manage or protect (i.e. historical/heritage values). The following would be “permitted activities” (i.e.
they would not need resource consent):
• activities that emit radio-frequency fields (such as a mobile phone transmitters) which comply with the existing NZ Standard
6
.
• telecommunications equipment cabinets installed along roads or in the road reserve that are not more than 1.8m in height and 2.5m
2
in volume
• the noise limits from telecommunications equipment cabinets which meet certain standards
• the height and size of masts and antennas installed on existing structures (such as lighting poles) alongside roads or in the road reserve.
Although this will result in slightly higher masts and larger cabinets, officers do not see the proposed changes as being significantly different from
Council’s current District Plan. This will need to be reviewed once the standard is finalised and becomes mandatory.
The National Code of Practice for Working in the Road, which seeks to provide a consistent approach to the road opening process. The main
impact will be on the “reasonable conditions” the Council can place on road opening notices. The main basis for establishing conditions will be traffic
safety – removing “visual amenity” and footpath width as possible conditions. It is expected that this document will be mandatory from mid-2009.
National Projects
The Broadband Challenge (BBC) fund was set up to allocate $24 million seed funding over four years. There were two categories under this fund- ‘Urban
and Metropolitan Networks’ and ‘Remote and Under Served Communities’. The focus of the funding for Urban and Metropolitan Networks was on high
capacity (1 Gbps) open–fibre networks that would serve the needs of urban and regional centres and their businesses, whether by upgrading existing
facilities or by installing new fibre. Below is a summary of the five metro areas (out of eleven) that received funding from the Broadband Challenge *
(totalling $16.3M), as well as other additional projects which have not yet received funding.
6
NZS2772.1:1999 Radio-frequency Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels 3kHz-300GHz
Page 32
Metro Area
Project Description
BBC $
1. North Shore City Council (and
Vector Communications Ltd)
The 38km NEAL (North Shore Education and Access Loop) fibre backbone linking the majority of the schools on
the North Shore went live in June 2007.
Funded by Vector Communications and the government through the Broadband Challenge Fund. Provides a 1
gigabit per second virtual network connection over Vector Communication’s UFN as well as access to KAREN.
Most of the network is underground; North Shore City Council has agreed to allow 4km above ground so that the
budget can be extended to provide services to 8 additional more distant schools that would otherwise not be
connected.
The network is not strictly an open access model. Currently only 51 out of 70 schools are connected. Vector has
reserved the right to control access for customers that join the network later on.
4.641
2. Hamilton City Council
The Hamilton Urban Fibre Network is a collaborative project led by Hamilton City Council with strong support from
Wintec, Environment Waikato, the University of Waikato, and Waikato DHB.
It intends to improve and extend its fibre network which is currently used for inner city security. Hamilton City
Council will own the network and lease it to a private entity - Lite-Up Ltd, who will operate and manage the
network.
The current focus is on ownership and governance structures. A key issue is to avoid creating a long-term
monopoly concession controlled by a private entity.
3.291
3. Porirua City Council/ Hutt City
Council/ Upper Hutt City
Council (SmartLinx3)
SmartLinx3 is continuing to deploy an open-access mixed fibre and wireless network in Hutt City, Upper Hutt and
Porirua. The core of the network is intended to be fibre across urban and suburban areas, with intention to use
licensed and unlicensed spectrum wireless to deliver full community coverage.
The recent key development has been completion of a fibre backbone from Wellington Railway Station to Upper
Hutt Railway Station, laid in the rail corridor. Kapiti and Wairarapa are currently in discussion to join.
2.373
4. Nelson City Council (Nelson
Marlborough Inforegion)
The Nelson Marlborough Inforegion’s (a regional broadband enabling organisation) proposal is to expand fibre
capacity in main population centres and establish internet exchanges in Nelson (NIX) and Marlborough (MIX).
Funding will be used to create a network operating company to set up and run the Internet Exchanges, and to
create fibre links to connect Picton to Blenheim.
1.789
Page 33
5. Christchurch (Canterbury
Development
Corporation)
Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) have let the first tenders for construction of an 88km underground fibre loop
in the central city, with 5 laterals that connect the major business areas of the city outside the CBD, including the airport
and university. These will in turn be connected by an outer ring of fibre. The urban fibre network will focus on connecting
councils, schools, health facilities, universities and businesses.
CCHL will own layer 1 dark fibre and allow multiple layer 2 operators to light up fibres. The loop is costing approximately
$13m, with CCHL funding the remainder of the cost
The project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008, but a major issue confronting CCHL is the shortage of
contractors and equipment to complete the work.
4.219
TOTAL:
16.3M
Other Metro Projects (that have not received funding)
Metro Area
Project Description
6. Palmerston North
Inspire Networks, an open access provider, is able (via an agreement) to lay duct and/or fibre whenever local roading
contractors are digging trenches in the road. The Council is involved at a minimal level. They have allowed Inspire Networks to
lay duct in the trenches dug as part of their upgrade plan for the city’s water mains.
7. Bay of Plenty
Bay Broadband is a project which started in 2006 across the seven Bay of Plenty Councils to ensure there is a bright future for
Broadband in the region. So far a cross Council project team has developed key objectives for the project and has
commissioned extensive issue analysis seeking to:
•
understand the key contributing factors
•
identify stakeholders affected by broadband delivery
•
identify areas where concerted efforts could improve the situation.
A Bay of Plenty Broadband Business case study was completed by GDI in 2007.
8. Manukau City Council
May be involved in the future with the Auckland City Council UFN project.
FTTH Flat Bush Project- New houses in the Mission Heights subdivision, one of the first parts of Flat Bush to be developed, are
being wired specifically for fibre optic broadband.
Page 34
9. Auckland City Council
Auckland is taking an active role to ensure the delivery of more competitive broadband offerings for its residents. It is focusing
on:
• A Wi-Fi wireless network in the CBD and CBD fringe. The Council does not intend to pay or own but allow access to assets
and may help to promote it. A Request for Information was issued in June 2oo7.
• An Urban fibre network connecting MUSH entities, high broadband business users and Telecom exchanges on the Auckland
Isthmus. The council expects the 150km open access fibre ring would cost $20-25m ($2 million in the 07/08 Annual Plan). The
Council is in detailed discussions with a range of potential partners and is actively exploring opportunities to work jointly with
other Councils in the Auckland region, including Waitakere, Manukau and the Regional Council.
10. Dunedin City Council
Dunedin has completed a feasibility study for a 31 km fibre ring extending from the CBD to Mosgiel with suburban connections,
concluding that the loop is technically and financially feasible. The study also considered the important role of wireless
broadband. In March 2007, the Council agreed to:
• Advocate for the establishment of an open access, high speed broadband service, and advocate for development of additional
high capacity connections out of Dunedin to the world.
• The use of the city’s physical infrastructure (in principle), to assist with the deployment of an open access network
• Pursue government funding for an urban fibre network
• Develop a business plan to develop and operate a MUSH open access network that would be operated by a separate Dunedin
City Holdings Limited commercial entity. The Council acknowledged that this investment would be unlikely, initially.
* Other projects that also received funding under the Broadband Challenge through the ‘Remote and Underserved Communities’ category (totalling
$1.1M) were Waitakere City Council ($175,000); WiKarekare Trust in West Auckland ($5,000); West Coast Development Trust ($600,000); Waikato
2020 Communications Trust ($47,000); Tuhoe Education Authority ($500,000).
Page 35
International Broadband Projects
Description/ Type of FttX and Reach
PLACE
Pilot/ Initial Rollout
Ultimate Goal
Ownership Structure
and Financing
Municipal Finance
Participation
Open Access
Network
1. Almere
(Netherland
s)
The Almere Fibre Pilot Project
was initiated by UNet in 2003,
connecting 1,500 -1,700
households and SMEs. The
company on its own accord also
connected 500 businesses in the
city.
By 2005, UNet had set up a
120km long fibre-optic backbone
around the city that connected
165 locations, including schools
and hospitals.
It was announced in December
2007 that Reggefiber (a cable
construction company) has
commenced rolled out of FttH to
the entire city, to be completed in
the next few months. Incumbent
KPN will use the network as a SP
and stimulate its copper subs to
transfer to FttH.
The city has benefited from
symmetrical broadband
connections of up to 2 gigabit/
sec.
By 2010 the whole city, including all
70,000 houses and 250,000
residents in Almere will be receive
FTTH. This is expected to be the
first big city in Europe to achieve
this.
There is also a possible plan to link
the UNet network with CityNet’s
fibre network in Amsterdam (to be
approved in the next 12 months).
The municipality is the owner
of the passive optical fibre
infrastructure.
They established a public-
private partnership to build an
optical fibre, equal access
network for the city in 2002,
with the vision to create the
“Almere Knowledge City” and
create jobs in the new city.
First Mile Ventures (part of the
UNET group) manages the
network in Almere while UNET
supplies broadband services
for consumers and businesses.
Yes- the municipal
funding over 6 years
has been9M Euros.
Funding was also
received from regional
government and the EU.
It was also reported that
the city received 200M
Euro from other
investors.
But at present the
Almere fibre project is
being financed by
Reggefiber due to
recent scrutiny of
municipal funding by the
European Commission.
Yes- at service
level.
2. Amsterdam
(Netherlands)
In 2000, a few low income
housing developments received
FTTH from a private Swedish
company. Due to the resulting
economic benefits, a project was
approved by the City Council in
2006 with BBNet as the operator.
The first phase rolled out 40,000
homes initially. Deployment of the
network started on 12 October
Glasvezelnetamsterdam (GNA)
aims to rollout 420,000 households
and all businesses – (to approx.
450,000 meter boxes in the city).
Fibre will be connected to all
apartment units within multi-
dwelling units as well.
Public Private Partnership to
pilot rollout. Financing is
coming from debt and private
sector partners (housing
corporations, Reggefiber, and
ING Real Estate Investment
Management). The first rollout
will take 7 yrs and cost NZ$580
million.
BBNet will serve as operator,
Yes- 6 million of 30
million (passive).
10% of the cost in Stage
1.
Less Council
involvement after Stage
1. The City will build and
own a portion of the
passive elements of the
network only. The Citys
Yes- BBNet’s
contract is non-
exclusive and
other service
providers may
use the fibre
under network
terms and
conditions.
Page 36
Description/ Type of FttX and Reach
PLACE
Pilot/ Initial Rollout
Ultimate Goal
Ownership Structure
and Financing
Municipal Finance
Participation
Open Access
Network
2006 after a legal challenge from
UPC. Another challenge came
from the European Union in 2006.
provide electronics and provide
10 years of (non exclusive)
services.
owns 33% of GNA.
3. Brisbane
(Australia)
The Queensland government
initiated Project Vista on 26 Oct
2006, and announced a planned
rollout of FttP to all households in
Brisbane.
Expressions of Interest were
invited from private companies
from Nov 06. Sept 07 was the
target to select preferred
proponent, with the contract to be
awarded Dec 07. Rollout was
planned to start in July 2008,
however
the recent broadband
announcements by both the
Federal Government and the
Federal Opposition have the
potential to overtake the Project
Vista strategy.
The proposed network would span
945 km and connect almost 1
million residents – and provide
speeds of over 100Mbps.
The Queensland government
estimated the project would
cost $550 million.
Partial- Access to
government assets, but
no financial assistance
to be provided to the
project.
Yes
4. Catalonia
Region
(Spain)
The massive planned open
network will reach a large no. of
cities in the region using multiple
fibre rings. A pilot network was
planned to be installed by early
2006. Requests for proposal for
the production network were also
due to go out in 2006.
The project is still in the planning
stages. Focus is currently
metropolitan and long distance
fibre and it is unclear whether this
will involve much FTTH.
Build is expected to take 4 years.
The government of Catalonia
and Localret (a consortium of
782 municipalities) are carrying
out this project.
Yes- EUR 500 million
Yes- an equal
access model.
Page 37
5. Deventer
(Netherlands)
It was announced in 2007 that
Reggefibre will roll out FttH to the
entire city (popn. 110,000).
Deventer has been on the forefront
of broadband deployment since
1997. All 52 schools have received
FttH.
An alternative approach for
facilitating roll out of fibre has been
the approach of the city of
Deventer.
Deventer has focused on demand
aggregation. It has aggregated 100
customers requiring 100 Mbps
symmetrical connections, for 3 year
contracts at €300/month. The
customers are a mix of SMEs,
education and health institutions
and residents.
All buildings are
expected to be joined by
fibre in the year 2009.
The incumbent Telco and cable company have
jointly agreed to roll out FTTH to these customers
(effectively the anchor tenants on the backbone of
the network), and then compete with each other
for the business of these customers. The
incumbents are working together because a
climate of cooperation is growing in the
Netherlands and there is now the threat that the
municipality will actually enter the market if they
do not roll out FTTH.
Unknown
Not
clea
r
6. Hauts-de-
Seine
(western side
of greater
Paris, France)
The Tres Haut Debit (very high
speed) 92” project was announced
in March 2006 by the Conseil
Général of which Nicolas Sarkozy is
President.
Trials have started; first
connections will be starting in 2008.
FttH for all homes and
companies in the Hauts-
de-Seine (all 36 areas).
The area is comprised
of 100 000 companies,
6 500 registered offices
and 1 500 000
inhabitants.
Two phased public-private project.
Up to 70 million in
subsidies (first phase
25M).
The General Counsel will
own the network and
delegate it to the chosen
operator (the cost is
shared by the operator
and by the Department).
Yes
7. Japan
On July 4 2007 it was announced
that Japan has 10 million FttH
subscribers or over 36% of all
broadband connections.
Japan has the world’s fastest
internet, up to 100 megabits per
second. Unbundling of the copper
lines occurred in 2000, with low rent
on bandwidth for companies ($2
month).
NTT (Nippon Telegraph
and Telephone Corp.)
Plans to roll out
“ubiquitous” broadband
to 30 million households
(FttH), spending $40
billion to 2010.
Joint Venture (PPP)
NTT is 34% owned by
government. Govt
provided subsidies and
tax breaks.
Yes
Page 38
8. Koln (Cologne)
(Germany)
CityNet Cologne rolled out in parallel to the
incumbent VDSL network.
At the moment, it is estimated that the network
covers about 1,300 buildings.
------
Other German cities following Cologne are
Hamburg and Munich:
In Hamburg, HanseNet is rolling out FttH to
15,000 homes and then plans to expand rapidly
to 100,000 homes. In Munich a trial by M-Net
involves 62 buildings covering 567 homes, with
the objective of covering 110,000 homes by end
of 2008 and 60% of Munich by 2011.
200,000 FttH.
The network will be
expanded throughout
2007 to include 9,000
households in the inner
city areas.
NetCologne is a 100%
municipal corporation.
(I.e. a 100% subsidiary of GEW
AG, which is a 100% subsidiary
of Stadwerke Koln, which is a
100% subsidiary of the Koln
Municipality).
Yes - 250 million
No
9. Kuusiokunnat
and Kouvola
(Finland)
Kuusiokunnat is located about 350 km north of
Helsinki and has an area of 3.409,2 km2. In 2002
the Project 6 Net started to build a fibre network
out to 6 municipalities. The first phase was
finished in 2004.
The 1,300 km 2x 1 Gbps backbone network
connects FTTH to 30 000 people, about 10 000
households and 2000 small business (built by
Verkko-osuuskunta Kuuskaista). The original
backbone network was established in 1997.
In Kouvola -Ftt village, and then ADSL.
Phase 1 - Fibre Core
network 6net 280km
6€/m
1 681 000€
Municipalities 55%, EU
45%
Phase 2 - FTTH 448km
(4800E/house) 6€/m
2 400 000€ Public
private, EU
Phase 3 - FTTH 550 km
(4800E/house) 6€/m
public and private
funding.
A cooperative, which is owned
by the members.
The network is owned by the
municipalities.
The Network Cooperative
Kuuskaista was established in
Nov 2002 and consists of 6
municipalities: Kuortane,
Alavus, Toysa, Ahtari,
Lehtimaki and Soini.
Yes- financed by
the municipalities
-55% and EU+
state - 45%.
The budget for the
initial backbone
was 1, 681, 000
Euro.
Yes- open to
all service
providers and
operators.
Page 39
10. Milan
(Italy)
In 1999, FastWeb was launched in
Milan as one of the first muni fibre
projects. Now it is a highly successful
company covering all of Italy.
Telecom Italia has recently entered
into an agreement with Metroweb to
expand its fibre-optic network in and
around Milan. The agreement will give
Telecom Italia access to 70,000
buildings, partly through Metroweb’s
original network infrastructure.
Telecom Italia is not massively
investing in FTTH (fibre to the home)
solutions. Instead, it plans to deploy
both FTTCab (fibre to the cabinet) and
FTTB (fibre to the building) solutions
using VDSL2 technology over copper
on customer drop.
By the end of 2010,
Fastweb hopes to
cover half of all
Italian homes and
connect all major
cities.
100% of MetroWeb shares
are held by AEM spA (the
municipal energy
company), of which the
Milan Municipality holds a
controlling 44% of shares.
Yes- 100 million
The Milan municipality was one of
the original co-founders. Years later
the company was split between a
service provider Fastweb, (owned by
other investors), and an
infrastructure holder in Milan
(Metroweb, owned by the City of
Milan).
In 2007 the City of Milan sold
Metroweb to a private equity
company- Sterling Square.
MetroWeb is open
access (has a
Municipal Area
network, district
network, and a long
distance network).
11. Nuenen
(The
Netherland
s)
Currently 25,000 residents, (7,500
households and 400 businesses) are
all connected by a star-shaped fibre
network (FttH).
The project was launched in 2004.
97% of households in Nuenen joined
the cooperation.
Rollout of OnsNet to
all of Eindhoven is
currently in its
planning stages (to
80,000 households).
The network is owned by
the members themselves,
who formed a corporation.
This approach was
unparalleled in the world at
the time.
Co-ownership with 4
entities: Close The Gap,
Ons Net, Ons Wijin and the
FttH Cooperative
Association (owns the fibre
through the cooperative
ownership model).
Yes- makes use of government
funding through the Kenniswijk
project.
Members of the cooperation all
requested the Kenniswijk
infrastructural subsidy of € 800.
Because of this, members did not
have to pay any connect ion costs
and received a 10 Mbps Internet
subscript ion for free during the first
year.
Yes
Page 40
12. Oslo
(Norwa
y)
Viken Fibernett has begun building a FTTH network
and is now connecting customers.
Ostlandet’s 2 million residents to all
get FttH.
53% of shares in
Hafslund owned
by the
Municipality
Yes, partially.
Yes
13. Paris
(France)
Citefibre (now owned by Iliad) has connected 130
buildings representing 4,000 households (3,000
kms of fibre).
Iliad starting deployment in 2007 using the sewer
network (5 year project).
2.1 million FttH in the City of Paris.
The City of Paris has also
announced a city-wide free wi-Fi
service (provided by Alcatel and
SFR) which was to be launched in
late 2007.
Iliad is a private
company
(investment of 1
billion )
Yes-support
(75-100M worth of support in lowered
RoW costs).
The City Government is making the
sewer network available for
deployment of fibre.
Yes?
14. San
Franci
sco
(USA)
The Mayor's office allocated $300,000 in 2006 to
study the feasibility and costs of building an FTTH
network.
Currently the city has 50 miles of fibre serving
MUSH entities such as the community colleges, the
City government, and public safety agencies.
The San Francisco Enterprise Zone would be the
first piloted area to be rolled out, at a cost of $150
million.
Wi-Fi - An agreement between Earthlink, Google
and the City of San Francisco was to provide free a
Wi-Fi network. Plans have since been abandoned.
EarthLink would have paid the city $2 million for the
right to build, install and run a free Wi-Fi network
and to partner with Google to provide Internet
service.
In Jan 08 Meraki Networks
announced a bold plan to create a
citywide Wi-Fi cloud in San
Francisco that would provide free
Internet access.
The Wi-Fi project relies upon
residents setting up solar-powered
mesh nodes on their rooftops and
repeaters in their homes. They
believe they will succeed where
EarthLink and Google did not.
The City would
own the fibre
and lease it to
service
providers.
The cost of building the entire fibre
network in San Francisco (to pass
100 percent of homes and
businesses and include connections
to 50 percent of the premises passed)
was estimated at $410- $560 million.
It was to compliment the Wi-Fi
network.
Meraki is backed in part by Google
and Sequoia Capital.
Yes?
Page 41
15. Seattle
(USA)
The Task Force on Telecommunications
Innovation was set up in 2004 by the City. A
RFI was issued on May 22, 2006 seeking
partners to join the City in creating an FttP
network. 28 companies replied to the RFI and
the City concluded its discussions with 10 of the
respondents in October 2006. A proposal to
select a company or a consortium that would
build and manage a citywide fibre-optic network
was to be announced in late 2007.
“Speakeasy” wireless trials completed also.
Now on hold similar to San Francisco. Couldn't
reach agreement with service providers after
offering free use of street lamps for radio
transmitters in exchange for a network built,
owned and operated by providers at no cost to
the city.
Evaluating the feasibility of
a PPP to build and own an
FttP network to deploy
fibre to all of its 270,000
households.
Public-Private Partnership
The City will be an
infrastructure partner and would
contribute rights-of-way and
access to current fibre lines.
Costs expected to be $200
million to run the fibre to every
neighbourhood and $300 million
to connect every home and
business.
Yes-
planned.
16. Stockholm
(Sweden)
StokAB was founded in 1994 when the City of
Stockholm chartered a company to lay a
publicly owned fibre-optic network throughout
the city. They have operated a backbone fibre
network over for 10 yrs (dark fibre only).
The network comprises 5,600 kilometres of
cable and in total 1,200,000 kilometres of fibre.
In 2005 the Council decided to have the city’s
100,000 social housing apartments connected
in an FttH rollout.
A planned expansion of
the network has been
announced (by partner
Nexans) that will connect
directly to fibre LANs (local
area networks) in
residential buildings.
Public- StokAB is a 100%
municipal owned utility.
AB Stokab is wholly owned
by the company group
Stockholms Stadshus AB,
which is in turn wholly
owned by the City of
Stockholm. Stokab started
as a construction company
regulated by the Swedish
government.
Yes- 100 million
Yes-
open to
all
players
on equal
terms.
17. Vienna
(Austria)
Wienstom’s “blizznet” FttH project started on 20
August 2007.
A pilot connected 8,000 households, and some
buildings in 7 districts. The current length of
network is 1,400 km, and the ducts for the
additional 2,200 kilometres needed are already
waiting to be used.
Aims to connect 50,000 households by 2009.
Second stage another 250,000 connections.
The “Wiener Bildungsnetz” (Vienna education
network) connects the city’s 450 compulsory
In the coming 10 to 15
years all 950,000
households and 70,000
SMEs will be connected.
Public- 100% owned utility
co. Wienstrom (network
constructed and operated
through City’s municipal
utility).
Uses the existing
infrastructure of Wien
Energie Fernwärme (the
municipal energy company)
and Wiener Linien (the
municipal public transport
Yes- 10 million Euro
Aim: Yes
Page 42
schools. “Citynet” links 130 public buildings in
Vienna.
company).
The sewer network can be
utilised.
18. North
Yorkshire
(UK)
The North Yorkshire project will offer service
providers the ability to offer high speed
broadband to (speeds of up to 1GBbit/S) to
330,000 households and 50,000 SMEs and
SOHOs in the region. The network is based on
a fibre core with major PoPs in the main
centres. NYnet (the economic development
organisation established by North Yorkshire
County Council in conjunction with Yorkshire
Forward and Government Office-Yorkshire) has
created a backhaul infrastructure to 12 points of
presence in North Yorkshire using aggregated
public sector demand.
NYnet represents one of Europe’s largest public
sector led, open access, broadband
infrastructure initiatives.
NYnet plans to provide
benefits to local authorities
and citizens in the
following areas: Craven,
Hambleton, Harrogate,
Richmondshire, Ryedale,
Scarborough, Selby and
York.
Public-Private partnership
(PPP)
North Yorkshire County
Council with support from
Yorkshire Forward and
Government Office-
Yorkshire. The private
sector technology partner is
BT.
Yes- £0.5m initial capital
funding was allocated by the
North Yorkshire County Council
in 2006. £4 million of funding
was approved from the regional
development agency Yorkshire
Forward, and a further grant of
£1.1m from the European
Union.
The European Commission
conducted a state aid
investigation into the project in
2007, concluding that that the
effect on trade is limited and the
overall impact of the measure is
positive. It approved the
initiative.
Yes
Source: “An Overview of Fibre” (by Dirk van de Woude 2007), and various other sources.
Page 43
Incumbent Next Generation Access Deployment Plans by Target Date
Incumbent next generation access deployment plans by target date
4
5
21
46
50
50
70
80
90
92
95
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F
ra
nc
e
T
el
ec
om
-
2
009
Te
lec
om
I
t
al
ia
-
20
09
D
T
G
er
m
an
y
-
2008
B
el
gac
om
Be
l
gi
um
-
2006
V
er
i
z
on
U
S-
2
010
AT
&T
(
SB
C)
U
S-
200
8
S
w
i
ss
co
m
-
20
08
HK
B
N
H
ong K
on
g
- 2
008
TD
C
D
enm
ar
k
-
201
0
KT
Ko
r
ea
-
20
10
N
TT
J
apan
-
20
10
KP
N
N
et
her
land
s
-
2009
Incumbent & Target Date
D
e
pl
oy
m
e
nt
R
e
a
c
h %
Incumbent/ Place
France
Telecom
Telecom
Italia
DT
Germany
Belgacom
Belgium
Verizon
US
AT&T
(SBC)
US
Swisscom
HKBN
Hong
Kong
TDC
Denmark
KT
Korea
NTT
Japan
KPN
Netherlands
Target Homes m
1
1
8
2
18
18
2
2
2
12
47
8
Investment £b
.19
.12
2.00
.20
11.00
3.20
.285
.067
n/a
n/a
25.00
.67
Technology
FTTH
FTTC
FTTC
FTTC
FTTH
FTTC
FTTC
FTTH
FTTC
FTTH
FTTH
FTTC
Target Year
2009
2009
2008
2006
2010
2008
2008
2008
2010
2010
2009
2010
Source: Adapted from Ofcom Paper (Office of Communications) (UK) – “Future Broadband- Policy Approach to Next Generation Access”-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nga/future_broadband_nga.pdf
Page 44
APPENDIX 4
Telecom Cabinetisation Programme
(Published 21
st
Nov 2007)
Exchange Name
Planned date
for
cabinetisation
Planned
date status
Suburbs affected
Wellington
1/07/2008
Binding
Kaiwharawhara, Ngaio
Wellington
1/07/2008
Binding
Thorndon, Wadestown
Wellington
1/10/2008
Binding
Wadestown
Wellington
1/10/2008
Binding
Ngauranga
Miramar
1/01/2009
Binding
Karaka Bay, Miramar
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Ngauranga
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Thorndon, Wadestown, Wellington Wharf
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Thorndon, Wadestown, Wilton
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Wadestown
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Thorndon, Wadestown, Wellington Wharf
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Ngauranga
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Thorndon, Wadestown
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Wilton
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Wadestown, Wilton
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Wellington Wharf
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Kaiwharawhara, Khandallah
Wellington
1/01/2009
Binding
Wellington Central, Wellington Wharf
Khandallah
1/04/2009
Binding
Kaiwharawhara, Khandallah
Khandallah
1/04/2009
Binding
Ngaio
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Maupuia, Miramar
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Miramar, Seatoun Heights
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Seatoun, Strathmore
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Seatoun, Seatoun Heights, Strathmore
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Karaka Bay, Miramar, Scorching Bay
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Maupuia, Scorching Bay
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Karaka Bay, Miramar
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Miramar
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Maupuia
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Maupuia
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Karaka Bay, Miramar, Seatoun Heights
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Strathmore
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Seatoun
Miramar
1/04/2009
Binding
Miramar, Scorching Bay
Courtenay Place
1/07/2009
Binding
Wellington Central
Courtenay Place
1/07/2009
Binding
Brooklyn
Courtenay Place
1/07/2009
Binding
Brooklyn
Page 45
Exchange Name
Planned date
for
cabinetisation
Planned
date status
Suburbs affected
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Ngaio
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Khandallah, Rangoon Heights
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Khandallah, Ngauranga, Rangoon Heights, Raroa
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Kaiwharawhara, Khandallah
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Khandallah
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Crofton Downs
Khandallah
1/07/2009
Binding
Crofton Downs
Wellington South
1/07/2009
Binding
Melrose, Newtown
Wellington South
1/07/2009
Binding
Berhampore, Kingston
Wellington South
1/07/2009
Binding
Kingston
Wellington South
1/07/2009
Binding
Berhampore
Wellington South
1/07/2009
Binding
Brooklyn, Kingston, Vogeltown
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Aro Valley, Brooklyn
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Aro Valley, Brooklyn, Wellington Central
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Wellington Central
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Mt Cook, Newtown, Wellington Central
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Brooklyn
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Aro Valley, Highbury
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Brooklyn, Kowhai Park
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Roseneath
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Hataitai, Roseneath
Courtenay Place
1/10/2009
Binding
Oriental Bay, Roseneath
Island Bay
1/10/2009
Binding
Happy Valley, Kingston
Island Bay
1/10/2009
Binding
Island Bay, Newtown, Southgate
Island Bay
1/10/2009
Binding
Happy Valley
Kilbirnie
1/10/2009
Binding
Houghton Bay, Melrose, Newtown, Southgate
Kilbirnie
1/10/2009
Binding
Houghton Bay, Lyall Bay, Melrose
Kelburn
1/10/2009
Binding
Wilton
Kelburn
1/01/2010
Binding
Wilton
Kelburn
1/01/2010
Binding
Northland, Wilton
Kelburn
1/01/2010
Binding
Northland, Wilton
Karori
1/01/2010
Binding
Karori, Karori South
Karori
1/01/2010
Binding
Karori
Karori
1/01/2010
Binding
Karori, Karori South
Karori
1/01/2010
Binding
Karori, Karori South
Wellington South
31/05/2010
Binding
Berhampore, Newtown
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Redwood
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Redwood
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Redwood, Tawa
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Linden, Tawa
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Greenacres, Grenada North
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Greenacres, Grenada North
Page 46
Exchange Name
Planned date
for
cabinetisation
Planned
date status
Suburbs affected
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Linden
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Glenside, Redwood
Tawa
1/07/2010
Indicative
Grenada North, Redwood, Tawa
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Churton Park
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Churton Park
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Churton Park, Glenside
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Newlands
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Newlands
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Newlands
Johnsonville
1/10/2010
Indicative
Newlands
Page 47
APPENDIX 5
Telecom ADSL2+ Testing
Source: Telecom Wholesale Consultation – Sept 2007
Page 48
APPENDIX 6
Other Policy Options
6.1 Overheading
Overheading has significant potential to reduce broadband infrastructure
deployment costs. It is currently not encouraged in the Council’s District Plan,
although it can continue under ‘existing use rights’ (which enables utilities to
replace wires with wires of the same size). A District Plan change made in 2004
prevents any further intensification of overhead cabling in Wellington’s urban
area – unless resource consent is obtained and:
• the cable is not over 30 mm in diameter; and
• is placed alongside an existing network and is not perceived to have a major
visual impact.
The same District Plan change also removed the rule (approved in 1994) which
permitted the addition of one overhead cable for the purposes of “new
technologies”.
The Council encourages the undergrounding of utilities by making it a
“permitted” activity – which means that does not require resource consent to
proceed. The Council’s Undergrounding Policy also reflects public desire to
reduce overhead networks by:
• encouraging utility operators to underground their cable networks
• requiring all new subdivisions to have underground cable networks
• providing for a three year contestable fund pilot (from 2006/07) for
proposals from residents for partial subsidies for undergrounding projects.
To date no money from has been expended from the fund.
Options to relax the District Plan by making overheading a permitted activity
(not requiring resource consent) or reinstating the “one cable for new
technologies rule” would result in a mixed bag of benefits and risks.
• Although it would enable the rapid deployment of broadband infrastructure
without reference to a potentially costly and extended application process, it
would not necessarily help the Council meet its broadband objectives,
particularly open access.
• The rules would run counter to the Council’s Undergrounding Policy,
potentially resulting in high profile public opposition. A challenge to the plan
change could end up in an extended and costly Environment Court process.
In order to retain control over limiting overheading in the city, no changes are
recommended to the Council’s current policy and rules around overheading in
either the District Plan or Undergrounding Policy.
Page 49
6.2 Ducting new developments
It is recommended that further work be undertaken on a policy requiring
ducting to be laid in all new land (including both greenfields development and
single dwelling subdivisions) and multi-dwelling building developments.
Greenfields developments
A number of councils are adjusting their District Plans to require ducting
and/or fibre to be laid alongside other utilities established in greenfields
developments. Developers are already required to provide for roading, water,
stormwater, sewerage and street lighting services (which are vested to the
Council on completion) as well as for electricity and telecommunications
(though this does not specifically provide for broadband).
The Council already has a District Plan Change process underway to require
fibre cabling to be laid in all “urban development zone areas”. A specific rule
regarding broadband enablement was also included in the Lincolnshire Park
structure plan. Once the above plan change is adopted, the structure plans for
all developments will be required to specifically include fibre cabling.
This proposed rule, however, may not necessarily meet the Council’s broadband
objectives as the requirement for fibre cabling does not guarantee that it will be
open access infrastructure. A requirement around laying ducting may instead
better meet the Council’s objectives, though this would require a variation to the
change currently underway.
The further work this would require is:
• initiating a variation to the current District Plan change – which would
include consultation with affected parties
• changing the Code of Practice for Land Development – to state the network
design and materials required
• determining the cost implications, including liability of payment for the
infrastructure (this may require a legal opinion).
Small/Single dwelling subdivisions
For smaller subdivisions, any roading is likely to be privately owned (i.e. shared
driveways), with any ducting deployed unlikely to be vested back to the Council.
Legal advice will be sought on the practicalities of requiring the infrastructure to
be laid. Alternative incentives for developers may instead be required.
Multilevel Buildings/Dwellings
Multilevel buildings are also predominantly privately owned spaces. Currently,
they are also more likely to be set up for better broadband speeds, even without
fibre cabling being installed. NZ Standards currently do provide guidelines for
telecommunications that also relate to broadband enablement. Further rules
could, however, enhance it further by ensuring buildings have:
• two points of entry for cabling
• 100mm duct available
Page 50
• usable/accessible space for electronics
• accessible Power source
• provision of a common vault/access pit on the street.
6.3 RMA Process
The Council has already simplified the resource consent/RMA process for telcos
by appointing a single telecommunications coordinator to manage all
telecommunications infrastructure roll-out requests and provide feedback to
improve quality of applications. A key issue in this process has been ensuring
that the telcos put in place a protocol whereby they take the lead in
communications with adjoining neighbours and interested parties to avoid the
Council being overloaded with enquiries and complaints from the public.
Additional resources have also been contracted to ensure the large number of
consent applications being received in this area are being processed in an
efficient and timely way. Officers are looking to further streamline the Council’s
processes by identifying a single point of contact who will coordinate not just
the resource consent process but the processes for seeking permissions from the
Council’s Roading and Property teams.
Page 51
APPENDIX 7
Communication and Consultation Plan
1. Consultation Focus
The formal consultation process will be focused on obtaining comments from
the general public, stakeholders, community groups and organisations, and
different sector groups on the below key messages.
2. Objectives
The objective of the consultation is to obtain feedback from a representative
cross-section of Wellington’s residents and ratepayers, community groups and
organisations.
3. Key Messages
Before the Council makes any further decisions on its role in facilitating
broadband in Wellington city. . . it wants to know what the public thinks.
Key Messages are:
• High quality broadband infrastructure enables economic development and
increases productivity. It transforms the delivery of many social and health
services, and facilitates new forms of community engagement and
participation in public life. Broadband also has positive environmental
impacts, such as reduced road congestion and international air travel
through for example telecommuting and the use of high definition video
conferencing.
• Council’s level of intervention in the broadband market will be limited at the
Right of Way (layer 0) and Infrastructure (layer 1) levels, limiting the
duplication of infrastructure and encouraging services competition from the
commercial sector.
• The cost to Council will be minimised and cost-neutral plans promoted.
• Council will promote a shared infrastructure model investing in an urban
fibre network that links every school, health provider and community site in
Wellington City (MUSH entities).
4. Target Audience
A number of telecommunications companies and information technology
experts have already been involved in the process of developing the Council’s
proposals, and their views have been taken into account.
The planned formal consultation process is intended to encourage a wide range
of responses from Wellington’s community. All of those who participated in
Page 52
providing initial information and feedback will be given the opportunity to
provide further comments. All of the groups that would usually receive the DAP
will be made aware of this proposal and additional stakeholder and interested
groups and organisations will be targeted – including:
• Telecommunications companies
• Broadband Advisory Group
• Ministry of Economic Development
• Ministry of Education
• Ministry Of Health
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
• Services State Commission
• District Health Board
• Internet NZ
• TUANZ
• Commerce Commission
• Chamber of Commerce
• Victoria University
• Massey University
5. Consultation Techniques
A number of consultation techniques will be undertaken through the
consultation process, and it is intended that we will use the normal channels of
print media and use of existing Council publications. The broadband project has
a presence on the Council website and electronic submission will be encouraged.
Written comments on the proposal will be invited and submitters will also be
given the opportunity to make an oral submission. Submitters will receive
advice that their written submission has been received.
Individual meetings with existing stakeholders have been ongoing throughout
the process. Additional meetings will be arranged to update them with the most
recent project developments.
6. Consultation Evaluation
Written and oral submissions will be summarised and analysed. The result of
the consultation will be reported back to the Strategy and Policy Committee.
All submission writers will be notified of the results of consultation.
7. Consultation Programme
The consultation programme is to be determined after Committee approval.