David Barak noted:
It should be noted that the same statement applies to
DSL, FTTH, or RFC-1419 service as well: anyone who
wants to CAN do an overbuild, and in fact that would
probably be the best for customers in the long-run.
A very timely comment, and IMO you are correct. Especially with respect to "that
would probably be the best for customers in the long-run."
But there obviously are limits. I have at times been involved with, and seen the
work of others who have attempted to come up with a number that defines just how
many horizontal service providers - at the various layers of the stack -- with
glass-wireless at 1, gigabit Ethernet at 2, and Internet at 3 -- a given service
territory could support. Analysis must take into account the needs of the
citizens being served; the SPs' viability and financial sustainability; and the
sheer logistics of the situation, given the limitations of time, space and the
need for elegant hand offs to customers through the use of a minimal set of
channel interfaces and speeds.
Given an area where poles and underground conduits are already occupied with at
least two wireline heavyweights, namely the duopoly players who are happily
dancing to the tune of "inter-modal" competition that was given a blessing by the
FCC, plus the electric company on the ground, and three-to-four wireless
providers who already are renting space on existing tower structures for WiMAX,
how may more trenches, poles and towers can the support structures and rights of
way in many populated areas support?
Consider a simple example, albeit, one that is more easily stated than
A fiber condominium builder receives permission and a franchise to overbuild
glass onto an entire town's existing copper footprint, resulting in a shared
Layer 1 resource that allows upper layer Service Providers to rent fiber from
them in the forms of feeder, distribution and drop cables right up to each end