|
Friday, May 25, 2007
BANGALORE: According to Ovum, the analyst and consulting firm, NGNs in the core network mean all-packet (IP) transport and a clean separation of service-delivery functions from transport.
Leith Campbell, Ovum Principal Consultant, based in Melbourne explains, "This duplicates the architectural separation of the Internet and Web but with more functionality to provide several levels of service quality, a rich set of services through a single interface, and various levels of functionality for business and residential customers."
"This adds up to a substantial systems transformation as well as an all-IP network roll-out. The systems transformation is at least as important as the network simplification," adds Dr Campbell.
NGNs for the access network mean a higher-bandwidth (at least 20 Mb/s per customer), fibre-rich solution, with fibre to the node (with VDSL on copper to the premises) and fibre to the premises being the major variants.
A large-scale access replacement is a very costly exercise so most NGN access plans assume access transformation only in high value or highly competitive areas, with other opportunities for new access (e.g. new housing estates) as they arise. "Completion can take a long time", noted Leith.
"There's an exception in South Korea, where the case has been made for a full fibre roll out based on support for the economy and the desire for a high-tech society", said Leith Campbell. He added that there are echoes of the same issue in the Australian debate about who will or should build an FTTN network and under what conditions. Support for the economic infrastructure of the country is part of the business case for NGNs but how much is not so easily defined.
NGN systems and network transformation is costly and the business case for doing so almost always (probably always, but some claim otherwise) needs some additional service revenue or increased revenue retention to make it work. That is, the operations cost savings and the eventual capital savings are not enough on their own. New services are needed and IPTV is a popular choice.
IPTV holds out the promise of many very attractive features to add to the basic television experience - multiple camera angles, player statistics, and interaction with advertising, for example. Because it's delivered by IP, it provides a much easier architecture in which to innovate. But the cost of attractive content may be prohibitive in some markets and the willingness of end customers to pay enough for new service features is not yet proven. So the business case remains problematical.
Of course, part of the promise of the NGN transformation is that it should enable easier partnerships for providing services like IPTV. Telecommunications incumbents in general have a tendency to try to do too much themselves and are still learning how to partner with others efficiently and effectively. "If NGNs and IPTV bring about new partnership arrangements, as they should, they will affect the telecommunications industry much more profoundly than just the underlying network and systems transformations," concludes Leith Campbell.
|
