Abstract— Today, the increasing adoption of internet applications is driving the demand for high bandwidth communication services to individuals, homes and business premises. Fiber to the home (FTTH) is a future-proof fixed access technology that supports high bandwidth applications to the end user; however its deployment typically requires heavy capital investments that make for a significantly long payback period. For this reason, there has been an increase in fiber access network sharing initiatives between Network Operators. Analysis has shown that sharing the infrastructure on a wholesale basis delivers savings in capital and operational expenses; subsequently shortening the RoI (Return of Investment) period, enabling the faster delivery of services to a greater number of subscribers. This model is known as OAN; a horizontally layered network architecture and business model that separates the physical access of the network from the actual service provision. This paper presents an overview of OAN models, the most commonly shared infrastructure globally, and draws conclusions from experiences in the region. The paper outlines strategic business models, provides guidelines to overcome technical and regulatory implementation challenges and presents a new business model based on the combination of OAN and FMC concept that would enable the future deployment of networks capable of providing broadband services from multiple services providers (retailers) simultaneously.

1. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X 1
Open Access Network (OAN) & Fixed Mobile
Convergence (FMC): Foundation for a Competitive
New Business Model
Hedi A. Hmida (PhD)
Department of Applied Mathematics, Signals &Communications
SupCom, Carthage University, Tunisia
hhmida@hotmail.com
Abstract— Today, the increasing adoption of internet
applications is driving the demand for high bandwidth
communication services to individuals, homes and business
premises. Fiber to the home (FTTH) is a future-proof fixed
access technology that supports high bandwidth applications to
the end user; however its deployment typically requires heavy
capital investments that make for a significantly long payback
period. For this reason, there has been an increase in fiber access
network sharing initiatives between Network Operators. Analysis
has shown that sharing the infrastructure on a wholesale basis
delivers savings in capital and operational expenses;
subsequently shortening the RoI (Return of Investment) period,
enabling the faster delivery of services to a greater number of
subscribers. This model is known as OAN; a horizontally layered
network architecture and business model that separates the
physical access of the network from the actual service provision.
This paper presents an overview of OAN models, the most
commonly shared infrastructure globally, and draws conclusions
from experiences in the region. The paper outlines strategic
business models, provides guidelines to overcome technical and
regulatory implementation challenges and presents a new
business model based on the combination of OAN and FMC
concept that would enable the future deployment of networks
capable of providing broadband services from multiple services
providers (retailers) simultaneously.
Index Terms—About; OAN: Open Access Network, FMC:
Fixed Mobile Convergence, FTTh: Fiber to the home, GPON: Gb
Passive Optical Network.
I. INTRODUCTION
Today, broadband access to the internet is considered as a key
factor contributing to the evolution towards knowledge-based
sustainable economies and improved social welfare, enabling
the delivery of specialized services: telecommuting,
telemedicine, e-health, e-government, e-commerce and e-
learning... Several developed countries (eg., USA, Sweden,
Australia, Korea, Singapore, and Japan) realized this fact
earlier than other countries. They started building their
broadband infrastructure in cooperation with licensed
operators and utilities in order to provide internet access at
affordable prices to their citizens in urban and rural areas,
reducing the “digital gap” in their society. This move was in
line with the ITU Broadband Commission recommendations
with the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development
(Rio+20) recognizing the potential of broadband for progress,
innovation and sustainable development and called for
bridging the digital divide globally).
Given the capital intensive nature of FTTh deployments,
investment by incumbent telecom operators typically
prioritizes areas where the business study produces a positive
NPV. But, the search for profitable growth, combined with the
government expectations for reducing the “digital gap”, is
forcing the incumbents to consider new OAN models in fiber
deployment. In this model, the value-chain is split into a
number of horizontal layers, separating infrastructure
connectivity provision from end-user service provision. Any
service provider can offer any service/content (internet, VoIP,
and IPTV) to any customer without being the owner of
connectivity. The infrastructure is shared fairly and in a non-
discriminatory manner between multiple services providers
fostering competition on services differentiation over a single
shareable network. An implementation of the OAN model is
shown below where, in this case, the service responsibilities
have been entrusted to three separate types of entity:
- NetCo (Single Network infrastructure Company) for the
installation and maintenance of connectivity and
- OpCo (Single Operation Company) for operation,
commissioning, provisioning and monitoring of the
Optical Line Terminal/ Optical Network terminals (OLT
and ONTs) and
- Retailers Multiple service/content providers.
This business model, separating the roles of the service
provider (SP) and the network operator was initially
introduced in Sweden [1] and expanded to FTTh access
network in Australia, and Asia mainly in Singapore and
recently in the Middle East such as Qatar, UAE and KSA
(ongoing). Telecom regulators in these countries, aware of the
“digital gap” dilemma, intervened to attempt to balance the
situation for the benefit of disadvantaged households, by
providing financial incentives to operators who agree to
provide broadband services similar to those in the prioritized
areas (closing the digital divide by providing access to a
minimum level of broadband services).
In Qatar for example, two fixed Service Providers (SP)
licenses have been released by the regulator so far. The
existing fixed access network is entirely built, owned,
operated and maintained by the incumbent. However, the
second operator recently introduced in the market, mandated

2. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
2 ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X
to provide broadband services GPON based technologies,
started building its active infrastructure, while the backbone
and distribution (fiber connectivity) remain on lease basis
from the incumbent. As the country population density is very
low, the Return on Investment “ROI” is not secured; service
providers are reluctant to invest massively in FTTh
deployment. This outlook has triggered the regulator initiative
to launch a wholesaler fiber connectivity company “QNBN”.
In KSA, the “National Transformation Plan” is a government
initiative for broadband coverage in 2020 with the aim of
provisioning fiber to 80% of the households (HH) in dense
urban and to 55% in urban areas, and supporting 70% of rural
HHs by LTE. The rollout, partially subsidized by the
government, is planned to be executed in partnership with the
existing licensed operators.
This strategy has been also adopted in other countries,
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Korea, and in some
regions in the UK but implemented differently according to
the local specificities of each country in part driven by
circumstances of time and place, albeit at a substantial upfront
cost, as described below:
1. Set-up new company or establish alliance/partnership
between operators for build and operate of a purely
passive access network by sharing the existing duct
with the incumbent (fiber overlay) and wholesale fiber
connectivity services to the licensed services providers
i.e.: QNBN Qatar, UAE, Spain, and France…
2. In Singapore a consortium “OpenNet” has been
establish with different governance model: NetCo in
charge of the passive access network infrastructure
(AssetCo); OpCo for network operation and
maintenance of layers 2 & 3 and wholesale services to
retailers.
3. Launch of new governmental company for building
national broadband network (active and passive), access
and core network for wholesale to the licensed service
providers (retailers). The incumbent handed over
(business deal/sale) the existing copper infrastructure to
the new company for upgrade according to the required
technology (i.e.: NBN in Australia).
In this paper we will explore all possible OAN business
models, discuss pros and cons, deep dive in their respective
architectures, propose the most appropriate design for their
implementation and setup strategy and provide guidance for
their eventual adoption in the MENA region.
II. OPEN ACCESS NETWORK (OAN)
The access network infrastructure [2] can be described either
based on the type of the network elements (Active/Passive) or
their location in the network as inside (ISP) /or outside plants
(OSP). For fiber networks (as shown in Figure 1), active
components are classified as ISP and passive as OSP
equipment.
OAN refers to an arrangement where a network owner
(usually incumbent operator) shares access to its network
infrastructure with the other local competitors (OLOs) at
wholesale prices.
The most common model of OAN consists to have several
Active Network Operator (ANO) and Passive Network
Operator (PNO), managing each his own active/passive
network. Each, can operate, either separately or jointly, active
and passive infrastructures for its own use and wholesale at
commercial prices “white labeled” broadband services to
OLOs.
Figure 1: Active/Passive Network infrastructure location
This situation is the usual business model where the fixed
licensed operators were not able to reach an agreement for
building a shareable network. Generally, this case is not
economically viable, as it requires huge investment for
duplicated active and passive network components which
often remain under-utilized. Three other options are presented
below:
i. Option1: Multiple companies are involved in the active
part of the network. Each of them owns its own active
equipment running all together over a single shareable
passive network infrastructure. Multiple fibers can be
terminated at each premise location and managed either by
the owner of the PNE (Passive Network Element) or its
substitute.
ii. Option 2: The PNE and ANE (Active Network Element)
are managed and operated separately by two parties: the
ANO and PNO. ANOs lease the connectivity from the
PNO and wholesale the end to end link (active and
passive) as a service to the RSP (Retail Service Provider).
iii. Option 3: The ownership and operation of the whole
infrastructure including ANE and PNE is under one
“umbrella” of the incumbent. Retailers deal with the
network owner as a wholesaler of end to end connectivity
organized according to a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
The main inconvenience of this option is that several
retailers interface with the end user to configure the
residential gateway for the services to which that customer
is enrolled.
Any combination of the previous models remains within the
same framework. Multiple ANOs can have each his own
passive network, overlaying with the incumbent network

3. Open Access Network (OAN) & Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC): Foundation for a Competitive New Business Model
ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X 3
(infrastructure sharing basis). In this way, customers
connected to the network will have access to the services of
several service providers simultaneously. The network will
be open and fully shared without any discrimination between
the different players. This will drop the high cost associated
to the deployment of a network by each competitor; enable
new service providers, and speed-up the time to market.
III. WHOLESALE BUSINESS MODELS
The previous models can be elaborated further by defining
the wholesale boundaries according to the network projections
over the layers 1, 2 and 3 in the OSI (Open Systems
Interconnection) model as depicted in figure (2):
Figure 2: Wholesale models
A. Model 1: Wholesale the OSP infrastructure (Layer 1)
Network infrastructure can be partially or totally shared at
wholesale regulated prices. It includes OSP &ISP passive
network elements only, such as: ODF (Optical Distribution
Frame), Ducts & Sub- ducts, Manholes, Hand holes, closures,
joint closures, FDT (Fiber Distribution Terminal), FTB (Fiber
Termination Box), FAT (Fiber access terminal, patch panels,
splitters, as well as co-location facility services
(footprint/space, ODF, AC/DC power, Air Con, grounding…).
The retailer generally has two options: leases either the dark
fiber connectivity or the access to the shared duct:
i. Lease unlit fiber connectivity: Retailer leases fiber
connectivity from the CO to the ODF all the way to any
location in the OSP:
a) To the premise: End to End (feeder-distribution-drop)
from the CO towards the FTB at the end user premise.
b) Or partial lease of fiber: Retailers will lease the missing
part of the network (uplink/or downlink) to complete
the connectivity till the customer premise:
- Feeder only, from CO to FDT or
- Feeder and distribution from CO to the FAT.
ii. Duct sharing: Retailer leases duct space at the appropriate
location in the OSP to pull in its feeder, distribution or
drop fiber. Active equipment (OLTs) will be collocated at
the CO then backhauled toward its own core network. If
no space available at the CO, then retailers need to lease a
piece of land close to the CO where they can install
hardened shelters for their active equipment. In these cases
an extra cross connects cabinet is required to implement an
interconnection protocol facilitating the testing of both
network portions without any service disruption risks.
For better organization, this task can be assigned to a third
party e.g., a joint venture network company (NetCo) which
takes care of the deployment, provisioning and O&M of
the shared infrastructure. Partners should be treated fairly
and neutrally based on the principle of non-discrimination
for access to services.
iii. Collaborative built:
This business model could be extended to the case where
two (2) or more network operators cooperate to build each
of them its own infrastructure in separate areas, to which
they can have mutual access on the basis of a reciprocal
agreement situations. Its main advantages are:
- speed-up substantially the rollout plans and time to
market of broadband services
- limit road openings request, make municipalities
less reluctant for provisioning road opening work
permits
- prevent overbuild,
- reduce project delay
- simplify the management of the telecom corridor in
brown field and green field
In all cases a Memorandum of understanding (MOU), as well
as a Service Level Agreement (SLA) organizing the access to
the joint facilities are required.
B. Model 2: Wholesale of Layer 1 and 2 infrastructure
It means wholesale of both, passive and active network
elements (at the OSP & ISP infrastructure e.g.; OLT, ONTs
and RGs). The incumbent’s product offering is End to End
connectivity (OLT to ONT). Retailers the owners of the
contents lease managed services from OLT to ONT including
end-to-end physical connectivity (ODF–FTB). They have
access to the OLT at the bit stream level for backhauling
requirement. The OLT can be shared between multiple
retailers (by multiplexing technique). The maximum capacity
per 10Gbs PON (128 connections) should not be exceeded;
otherwise the speed at the end user will be affected negatively.
C. MODEL 3: Wholesale Layer 1, 2, and 3- “White labeled”
product with backhauling services
It encompasses model 2 entirely with IP-MPLS transport
service. Retailers can be considered as a Fixed Virtual
Network Operators (FVNOs) reselling fully managed “White
Labeled” broadband services (voice, video, and internet) to the
end users. The retailers contents are servers will be hosted at
their own facilities locally or abroad.
OSP OSP OSP

4. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
4 ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X
IV. OAN ARCHITECTURES
In the following we will translate the previous business
models at two different levels either at the Physical layer
(Passive) or Network layer of the OSI model (Active) with
different architecture:
A. Network sharing at the Physical Layer
1. Decentralized Architecture
Network components are distributed over different OSP
locations according to the network topology. The proposed
architecture is better for underground implementation. The
splitters are hosted in sealed enclosures within the hand holes
(HH). It offers equal access, simultaneously, to multiple
service providers offering broadband services to residential
and business.
The proposed design reserves part of the feeder cable (FU) to
Point to Multi Point (PMP) connections and 30% spare fibers
for Point to Point (P2P) connections and maintenance
requirements (usually FU~70%). If Np is the number of
premises that can be connected by a feeder cable; Np can be
calculated using the following formula (1):
𝑵 𝒑 = 𝑭 𝒖 (
𝑷𝑶𝑵 𝒃𝒘 𝑭 𝒄
𝑪 𝒃 𝑴 𝒔𝒑
) (1)
Where FU = % of fiber strands dedicated to PMP connections,
PONbw: PON bandwidth (2.5 GB or 10 GB),
Fc: Fiber count (288, 144…),
Cb: assigned bandwidth per customer (e.g. 100Mbps),
MSP: number of Service Providers.
For MSP=2, Fc=288F will ensure 2520 FTTh connections and
1680 if m=3.
Depending on the serving area density the feeder will be split
either in 2, 3, 4…fiber cables (with different count e. g; 144,
96, 72, 48 …) at the first splice point (in the joint closure).
Figure (4) shows an example where the 288 feeder cable is
split successively as in i.e. in 2x144, 4x72, 12x24… The last
splice point is located at the serving manhole from which nx12
fibers will be distributed then terminated at the splitters as
depicted in figure 4. The 1:32 (or 2:32) splitters outputs are
dropped to the customer premises using 4 fiber strands (2
active and 2 spares). The splitting ratio is up to 25 (i.e. only 25
ports out of the available 32 will be used) to provide 100Mbps
per end user.
Residential buildings/units are served via a single input port
(1:32) splitters while business, for protection and redundancy
reasons, are served with dual input ports (2:32) splitters.
The 12 drops can serve up to 100 end-users. The first 3 fibers
will be 2 active and 1 spare fibers (33% spare fibers). This will
lead to 96 spare fibers out of the 288 feeder cable as described
in figure 4.
A variety of design can derive from this model according to
the density, SDU, MDU, type of customer business or
residential… It is possible to have a combination of 1 and 2
spare fibers according to the type of the deployment location.
In high density business district, one might need to use
24fibers drop cable instead of 12. Network dimensioning
depends on the country geo-data: the number and type of
customers, building, their distribution (density) etc. A
subscriber classification list, residential, business, small, large,
SDU, MDU… along with their requirements have been
developed, is given in Table 1.
Figure 4: Fiber Mapping from CO to customer premises using 12 fiber cable
drops laid from serving MH (SMH) to maximum 4 HH, 2 fibers active and 1
spare, and 2x1:32 splitters serving 25 customers (1 SMH serves totally 200
customers).
Table 1: Subscriber’s classification
Building Type Definition Connection
Drop cable
fiber count
Terminated
fibers
Residential
SDU
Villa (1:32)/MH 4 2
MDU Small 1 2-12 Flats (1:32)/MH 4 2
MDU Small 2 13-25 flats (1:32)/ Indoor 4 to 12 apts. 2, 4
MDU Medium 26-50flats (1:32)/ Indoor 12 6, 8
MDU large > 50 flats (1:32)/ Indoor 12, 24, 24.... 10+
Commercial 1 < 10 lines (1:32)/MH 4 2
Commercial 2 >10 lines (2:32)/ Indoor 12,24, 48, 96 10+
Commercial
/Residential
Mix. (2:32)/Indoor 12, 24, 48, 96 10+
School Schools (2:32)/MH 4 2
University University P2P (12F) 12 8
Gov. Office Ministry P2P 12 8
Gov. Agencies P2P 4 2
Hotel
>100 P2P 4 2
Embassy P2P 4 2
Hospital P2P (12F) 12 8
Mall >100 P2P (48F) 48 24
This model is intensive in terms of fiber requirement, and is
space consuming to house the required ODFs and fiber
monitoring system as well as the services providers active
equipment’s(OLTs, routers…) when the number of SPs and
the CO capacity exceeds three (3) respectively 20K
subscribers.
2. Centralized Architecture
In this architecture design option [3], the splitters are
centralized in one location (underground or aboveground), at
the street cabinet “FDT” deployed juxtaposed to the existing

5. Open Access Network (OAN) & Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC): Foundation for a Competitive New Business Model
ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X 5
cross-connect copper cabinet. The splitter’s outputs are
dropped towards the FAT using minimum of 48fibers cable
then to the FTBs at the customer premises using 4 drops as
depicted in figure 5. The 48 fiber cable feeding an FDT (with
a capacity of 512 (16x1:32splitters)) will be configured as
follows (with the previous assumptions 70% active and 30%
spares) to accommodate only two (2) service providers (SP)
with 200 connections each:
 24 fibers for 8 groups of two splitters x 3 (2
active+1spare).
 The remaining 24 fibers are reserved for future
expansion, point to point, and route redundancy
requirements.
This solution suits very well within high and low density
urban areas; only fiber count will change according to the
building type (business or residential, number of stories, P2P,
fiber cable count 12, 24, 48…). The splitters can also be
hosted in a cabinet installed in the basement of the building.
Figure 5: Decentralized FTTH architecture
The below formula gives the feeder fiber cable count
according to the number of Operators and FDT capacity:
𝑭 𝒄 =
𝟏
𝑹
𝑭𝑫𝑻 𝒄
𝑵𝑺 𝒐𝒖𝒕
𝑵 𝒐𝒑
(𝑵 𝒂𝒇 + 𝑵 𝒔𝒇) (2)
Where Fc: feeder fiber count,
R=1/M (M=2, 3…) ratio of spare fibers in the feeder,
FDTc: the FDT capacity,
NSout: number of splits per splitter,
Nop: number of operators to serve,
Naf: number of active fibers (Naf=Nop),
Nsf: number of spare fibers.
(Example FC= 48F for R=1/2, FDTc=512, NSout=32, Nop=2,
Naf=2 and Nsf=1.
The splitters at the FDT are accommodated in a way end users
can have (if needed) broadband services simultaneous from
two different services providers as long as there are spare
fibers available at the distribution FDT-FAT (48/64fibers)
and drop FAT- FTB (4fibers) at a very low cost as depicted in
the below figure 6. The impact on Capex (for the incumbent)
depends on the SP2 access location to the shared
infrastructure:
1. Access at the CO: SP1 and SP2 will have each its OLT
collocated at the CO and share end to end OSP network
infrastructure. Only the feeder cable count and number
of splitters at the FDT will be duplicated across service
providers.
Figure 6: FDT accommodation serving 2 SPs
2. Access at the FDT: SP2 will lay its own feeder cable
from its CO to the incumbent FDT. SP1 and SP2 will
share the OSP infrastructure from FDT to FTB. The
required extra capex will be for extra splitters only.
B. Infrastructure Sharing at Data Link layer
Different SPs will have access to shared infrastructure
(layer 1 &2) at the datalink layers (active). They physically
share the same fiber where all data signals are exchanged
using a single pair of wavelength. They are seen as one SP.
They share the 2.5/10 Gb PON capacity using multiplexing
and routing techniques at the OLT backplane (active
infrastructure sharing) [4-6]. VLANs will be assigned to each
service from each SP, and bundled together in a single bit
stream on the same PON. The active and physical
infrastructure will not be impacted; the only limitation comes
from the PON capacity which can limit the number of SP or
services on a given PON.
Figure 6: Active & Passive infrastructure sharing architecture
Each SP (retailer) can provide any broadband services (voice,
video and internet) to any customers.
This configuration has significant benefit compared to the
previous ones. In fact the physical infrastructure required for
one SP remains the same (a single ONT for all SPs and no
extra fiber and splitters required). The additional CapEx

6. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
6 ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X
covers the MUX/DMX of the SP service streams at both ends
(OLT and ONT).
C. Infrastructure Sharing at Network Layer / Fixed Mobile
Convergence (FMC)
The access to the shared infrastructure (layer 1, 2 and 3)
starts at network layer (layer 3). This business model takes the
form of a joint venture between licensed operators. It consists
of a consolidation of all existing fixed and mobile networks
infrastructure (passive and active, Core, Transport, and
Access) into single national broadband fixed mobile
converged (FMC) network managed by new entity called
“NetCo” (owned by existing licensed operators “shareholders”
according to their individual contribution). Its mandate is to
build, operate and maintain the whole network, and wholesale
fixed and mobile broadband services equally without any
discrimination to retailers (as MVNO/FVNO). A huge saving
in CapEx and OpEx will be made as this business model will
end the duplication of fixed and mobile network resources
such as:
- Spectrum: Spectrum is a scarce resource worldwide.
Usually, the available spectrum in a country is assigned
by the Government to the licensed mobile operators
based on their needs. In this case the spectrum usage is
not likely to be as optimal as if the spectrum were
assigned to a single MNO serving the whole unified
customer’s base. This will improve the quality of service
and overall user experience, optimize the spectrum usage
efficiency and ease its harmonization for better
preparation to new adopted technology in future (i.e.,
5G) very “hungry” in spectrum.
- OSS and BSS: OSS and BSS will move from
organizational silos (distinct OSS/BSS for Fixed or
Mobile technology) into a common OSS/BSS for Fixed
and mobile network/services. So that CapEx and OpEx
(i.e.; license use) will be reduced by almost the half.
(Service providers will still need their own simplified
OSS/BSS and therefore there remains duplication across
providers).
- IP-Multimedia System (IMS:A single IMS and service
engine as a “universal platform” for all MNO's users as
well as a single Home Location Register (HLR) the main
database of permanent subscriber information will be
required. More than 50% of CapEx and OpEx saving can
be made.
- Radio Access Network (RAN): The passive and active
RAN’s infrastructure (BTS, BSC, backhaul, tower, radio
and antennas…) will be reused in the same site where it
is initially deployed with new frequency reallocation
plan, or reassigned to another site using traffic
engineering tool in a way the traffic volume in the sites
won’t be disrupted. The impact will be on Capex mainly.
The saving can be also significantly increased with fixed
mobile convergence (FMC) concept on network device and
services. A single IMS interoperable across the entire fixed
and mobile network will be required. Mobile voice and fixed
voice traffic will reach the same and unique IMS through
wireless and wired connections respectively, regardless of
access technology or device that can be used. A single
BSS/OSS, single RAN, single spectrum as well; all resources
will be put available and running under a single and unique
National Broadband Network for Mobile and Fixed services
wholesale. The retailers will be licensed to provide either
mobile or fixed or both; differentiation will be on services
portfolio.
V. INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS AGREEMENT (IAA)
AND SERVICES LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA)
Prior to start the rollout, the incumbent needs to develop a
protocol for provisioning the access to the physical
infrastructure, sets out all the network elements that can be
shared with the OLOs as well as relevant services
request/delivery procedures, all accessible through a “central
portal” recording all activities related to:
1. Services including duct Access, facility hosting space
(CO, manhole, hand hole, joint boxes, fiber connectivity,
ODF, FDT…), supervision and implementation support,
and any ad-hoc work for new deployment of duct or
fiber…
2. Service Implementation which encompasses mainly:
a) the process for ordering, provisioning and delivery of
access to the incumbent network, and
b) the procurement of its NEs for use by OLOs and
installation of Fiber Cables and other network
infrastructure within the incumbent’s network,
material type approval and PAT testing.
3. Operational procedures and processes that govern the
installation, maintenance and access to the provisioned
network elements.
4. Interconnection when OLO build its own duct
infrastructure and that fiber-optic cabling may need to be
connected to the incumbent infrastructure or OLO has
leased a NE from the incumbent and, in order to avoid an
obstruction or area of congestion, facilitate testing, OLO
must install a manhole and duct segment and /or ODF
cabinet adjacent to an existing incumbent duct segment.
5. Pricing/Billing
Usually, the space availability in the duct, manhole and CO
are very critical points and source of conflicts between the
incumbent and OLOs. For transparence, the approach to
determining and allocating available capacity in the shared
network should be clearly defined in the procedures:
i. Duct useable capacity: The capacity of the duct that may
be used for placement of additional cables “useable
capacity” should be calculated based on the following
principles:

7. Open Access Network (OAN) & Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC): Foundation for a Competitive New Business Model
ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X 7
- The effective capacity of the relevant duct is the gross
capacity “GC” (capacity of the whole duct) less the
maintenance capacity space needed for existing cables
less the occupied space by existing cable including
unusable space due to round geometry of cabling
(estimated, below, to squares spaces surrounding each
fiber cable section).
- The maintenance capacity is the vacant space required
for maintenance purposes. It is at least equal to the
section of the largest existing or planned cable in the
duct.
- The duct is considered full if UC (Useable Capacity)
reaches 75% of the gross capacity of the duct.
The occupied space by each fiber cable can be estimated
by a square with the length of the side equal to the cable
diameter. UC area can be calculated as the summation of
all areas of square surrounding the N fiber cables Fi (see
figure 7):
Figure 7: Duct capacity
𝑈𝐶 = ∑ 𝐹𝑖 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠 ≤ 75% (𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝐶) (3)
𝑁
𝑖=1
The available Capacity should be determined initially
through desk survey, and then by site surveys.
The incumbent may reserve partially or totally the duct
capacity for its own uses (up to 20% for existing ducts
and 100% for new deployed duct).
ii. Manhole/Handhole: Space in incumbent Manholes,
Hand-holes need to be provided for cable splicing (joint
closures) and maintenance subject to availability on the
aggregate duct route distance provisioned. A space for
joint closure (up to 25 liters) as well as hosting space for
15 to 30m of spare fiber will be provided in the
manholes/handhole of provisioned route.
VI. STRUCTURE OF THE NEW BUSINESS MODEL
Telecom SP organization structure is usually setup according
to the activity and functions of each business or/functional unit
such as Wholesale Business Unit (WBU), Enterprise BU
(EBU), Network and IT Sector, IT etc. This structure, no
longer adapted to the new scope of work of the organization,
needs to be amended accordingly. WBU with Technology
(Network, IT, Field Operation) should be an independent
entity serving retailers, the remaining BUs (seen as
independent SP retailers) respectively the OLOs retailers as
depicted in figure 8.
Figure 8: New Telecom Business Model
Beyond the saving, the combination of network infrastructure
sharing with FMC principles has also many other benefits
such as QoS improvement, ease of management, no more local
roaming and interconnection issues, competition will be only
on the service differentiation that retailers will be providing
and applied prices.
VII. REGULATORY ASPECTS
Usually the existing regulation is not appropriate for network
sharing purposes. The enactment of new legal and regulatory
environment associated to OAN is recommended to speed up
its implementation and ensure the most efficient use of the
investment capital from the industry. The new regulation
needs to discourage overbuild by ensuring that only one
broadband network is rolled out in the subsidized areas.
The main actions and concessions required from the regulator
to drive this result are:
- Define adequate services pricing policy for wholesale
and retail services (i.g.; in some NGN cases the regulator
has allowed retail pricing to be set on a competitive basis
and only subject to margin squeeze tests between retail
and wholesale prices).
- Adoption of network service exclusivity principle
(Overbuild not allowed for 5-10 years) in area assigned
to any operator for deployment on OAN basis.
- Encourage investments through incentive and subsidy to
the operators (i.e.: exemption from government fees on
broadband services, creation of broadband fund “BBF”
similar to the one in rural areas for universal services,…)
- Adopt force migration of customers from legacy to NGN
technology in any area upgraded from copper to fiber
services.
- Find new mechanisms that prevent end-users from
abusing in the use of broadband services (unlimited
mobile broadband service)
- Harmonize the spectrum locally and regionally, and
- Re-farm the 2G and 3G frequencies for efficient usage in
4G and coming 5G.
- Evacuation and allocation of digital dividend frequencies
for rural coverage (700, 800MHz).
- Establish a fair rollout projects assignment process (i.e.:
award projects by reverse auction, first come first served,
and commitment on earliest rollout…)
Duct
F1
F2
F3
F4

8. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
8 ISSN: 2180 – 1843 e-ISSN: 2289-8131 Vol. X No. X
- Automation of the planning and work permit process to
speed up issuance of permits, and to improve the
deployment delay,
- Improve local rules constraints for right of way of streets,
totally/or partially buried or areal infrastructure issues,
and also the width of available telecom corridor.
VIII. CONCLUSION
OAN was initially applied in mobile to reduce CapEx and
OpEx of the OSP infrastructure (towers, shelters…). This
concept has been expanded to fixed network and proposed as a
viable alternative for cost saving and also bridging the digital
divide by improving the internet penetration rate in urban and
rural areas including sparsely populated areas.
In this article we explored different types of wholesale
business models:
1. Wholesale the OSP infrastructure (Layer 1)
2. Wholesale both layer 1 and 2 infrastructure
3. Wholesale layers 1,2&3 (White labeled products)
The first model requires significant capacities in the duct and
fiber infrastructure, while the two others requires extra
capacity at the uplink ports that can support traffic generated
by several SPs broadband services.
Different options of OAN architecture have been also
proposed:
1. Network sharing at the Physical Layer for Multiple-SPs
centralized, and decentralized architecture solutions
2. Infrastructure Sharing at both physical and Data Link
levels (Layer 1, & 2). OLT to ONT are shared between
SPs (Wholesale at the bit stream).
3. Infrastructure sharing at the Network layer (Layer 3)
where SPs are considered as retailers, resellers of
broadband services they acquired as “White labeled
products”.
4. The last one is a fixed Mobile Convergence solution
integrating all licensed Operator under a single
umbrella “NetCo” in charge to build, operate the whole
network using combined resources initially used by
existing operators individually.
The first three foster competitions at services differentiation
(type of speeds, prices, QoS, package of bundled services),
while the fourth at the QoS and price offerings for the same
products. Network sharing at layer 3 is the best option
economically and technically, it is a step towards the FMC
scheme.
Network planners have on their disposal several options they
have to select the appropriate structure according to the
following key factors:
- The number of licensed telecom services providers
supported for sharing the infrastructure.
- The incumbent network capacity availability in
number, size and occupancy of ducts and sub-ducts,
and fibers
- The level of maturity of the market: types of broadband
services and technologies, market shares vs
competition.
- The amount of subsidy the government intend to offer
- The budget availability for CapEx and OpEx
- The expected revenue generation (RoI).
Any selected architecture requires the support of both the
telecoms incumbent and the regulator to drive required
expectations and to maximize the extent of the rollout and the
efficient use of expected investment.
Network infrastructure sharing, should not be considered only
as a mean for sharing CapEx and OpEx or reducing the digital
divide. It is bigger than that; it is the first stone paving the way
towards the birth of a new business model combining two
complementary concepts OAN and FMC. A new business
model, in which a single entity operates the network
infrastructure and provides services to retailers (F/MVNOs) in
a wholesale basis will supersede to the traditional model based
on “vertical integration”, in which one entity, operates the
network infrastructure and provides the service to the end
users.
Telecom regulators in each country, with the support of the
ITU should seize this opportunity to work together for
developing a new strategy that will drive changes of the future
telecom landscape worldwide.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks to my friend Gareth Morris for reviewing the
manuscript and for his valuable comments.
REFERENCES
[1] Marco Forzati, Claus Popp Larsen, Crister Mattsson “Open access
networks, the Swedish experience Department for Networking and
Transmission, Acreo AB, 164 40 Kista, Sweden
[2] Hedi Hmida & F. Shalan “Migration Options from legacy to Next
Generation Access Network (NGAN) in Brownfield Area” NOC/OC&I
2009- 14th European Conference on Networks & Optical
Communications, 4th Conference on optical Cabling and infrastructure
Valladolid SPAIN 9-12 June 2009
[3] Hedi Hmida, &Al “FTTh Design &Deployment Guidelines for Civil
Work, Fiber Distribution &Numbering” OFC NFOEC 2006- 5-10
March, Anaheim Convention Center Anaheim, CA, USA
[4] ITU-T G.987.1, SG15, “10-Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks
(XG-PON): General Requirements,” Jan. 2010
[5] ITU-T G.698.3, SG15, “Multichannel seeded DWDM applications with
single-channel optical interfaces,” Feb. 2012
[6] ITU-T G.989.1, SG15, “40-Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks
(NG-PON2): General Requirements,” Mar. 2013.
[7] A. Entwistle, I. Martin, K. Boodry, “5G Known unknowns: A global
investor perspective on the 5G roadmap Industry” New street research,
Meeting at ACMA 21 June 2016