broadband investment models - government

16
18800-392 Guide to broadband investment Presentation for QITCOM 2012 5 th March 2011 • Pat Kidney

Upload: patkidney

Post on 20-Jun-2015

429 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Models of investment for broadband intervention

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Guide to broadband investment

Presentation for QITCOM 2012

5th March 2011 • Pat Kidney

Page 2: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Introduction to Analysys Mason

Aims of the guide to broadband investment

Stages of investment planning

Choice of investment model

Overall recommendations

Contents

2

Page 3: Broadband Investment Models - Government

RefNo | Commercial in confidence

Analysys Mason has considerable global experience in undertaking

and assessing national broadband plans

3

Ireland 2006-12:

Design, procurement and

implementation support

for the EUR 234m

National Broadband

Scheme

UK 2001 onwards: Broadband

planning for regional development

agencies on the UK

UK 2005-2006: Development of

broadband scenarios for the BSG

in the UK

UK 2008 onwards: support

to Cornwall council in its

Next Generation Broadband

project

UK 2008: Broadband stakeholder

group models for efficient public

sector interventions in next

generation broadband

Wales 2004 -2010: Commercial and

technical strategy, business planning,

procurement and implementation

support as part of National fibre

broadband initiative

Malta 2011: Techno-economic feasibility of

a national FTTH network

Wales 2006: Study to

promote public intervention

in “second generation

broadband” market

UK 2010 onwards: Cost modelling

of next-generation broadband and

regional funding allocations

Italy 2001-2002: Analysis

of government intervention

mechanisms and

prioritisation for broadband

task force

US 2002-2003 : Study of US

broadband policy for TechNet

India 2010: Strategic

road- mapping and

assessment of drivers for

the deployment of a

national fibre- optic

backbone in India

Chile 2007-2009: Broadband

promotion study in Chile

Malaysia 2002-2003: National

broadband policy development

Gulf 2010: Regulatory support

in major Gulf country to define

three- year internet

development plan New Zealand 2010 - 2011:

Technical and cost reviews

underpinning the Government’s

national Ultra-Fast and Rural

Broadband strategies

Australasia 2010- 2011: Operator

support to become national partner

for ultra- fast broadband solution.

Subsequently carried out review of

solution and identification of global

best practice

European Commission 2010-

2011: Developed a guide for

investment in broadband

infrastructure, covering small

regional roll outs and national

interventions alike

Norway 2002: Assessed

the potential social and

economic benefits from a

scheme to provide

broadband to selected

public sector sites

Singapore 2005-2006:

Provided support on Next

Generation Broadband

Network Initiative

Western Europe 2004:

Analysis of Internet

access prices in

Western Europe

Thailand 2009:

Development of

national broadband plan

Brunei 2009-2010:

Development of

national broadband

strategy

Lesotho 2012:

Development of

national

broadband plan

EMEA 2011: National

broadband market

assessment,

benchmarks and

forecasts

Australia 2009: STEM

license, training and

modelling assistance for

National Broadband

project

Israel 2011: Technical audit of national

broadband solution used to evidence

international competitiveness and

sufficient investment capability to the

Government Egypt 2008: Provided

commercial and technical fixed

licence bid support addressing

i.a. national broadband

requirements.

Libya 2009: Provided

commercial and technical fixed

and wireless licence bid support

addressing i.a. national

broadband requirements.

EU 2011 onwards: Socio-economic

benefits of broadband in 27 EU

countries and private sector funding

analysis

Morocco 2011:

National action plan

for the development

of broadband

Page 4: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

The guide provides best practice in planning a broadband investment

Affordable, good quality and open ICT

infrastructure for all will support

cohesion, innovation, and social,

economic and political change

details planning and procurement issues

that must be considered for broadband

infrastructure investment

Important resource for meeting

broadband targets

Essential for managing authorities to

prioritise the long term socio-economic

benefit of citizens over short term private

financial gain

4

Page 5: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

The guide sets out seven key questions for planning a broadband investment

5 Stages of investment planning

Why should I invest in

broadband?

What type of network

infrastructure should I invest in?

How should I invest?

How do I manage/monitor the

outcome?

What can be done to ensure

demand for services?

What can be done to reduce the

cost and manage risks?

What are the next steps that need

to be taken?

Contribute to hitting the DAE targets by using EU

funds quickly and effectively

Include measures to reduce costs and manage risks

Understand the commercial case and your potential

role on the demand side

Ensure successful delivery and operation, and

provide evidence for audit

Understand the merits of each investment model

and what might work best for you

Understand the costs and benefits of different kinds

of infrastructure

Define project aims to tackle market failures and/or

deliver socio-economic benefits what and why?

Page 6: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Five investment models provide a broad spectrum of funding options

6 Choice of investment model

5 models

Bottom-up

Private

design build

and operate

Public

outsourcing

Joint

venture

Public

design build

and operate

Group of end users oversee the

contract to build and operate

their own local network

Managing

Authority

provides a

grant to

private sector

to assist in

deployment of

new network

Single contract for construction and

operation of network, but public sector

retains ownership and some control

Ownership of the network is split

between the public and private

sector

Public

sector

owns and

operates a

network

without any

private

sector

assistance

Page 7: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

7

Model Advantages Disadvantages Recommended use

Bottom up • Long term, non-

profit view

• Focuses demand

• Localised

deployments

• Differing technologies

• Targeting localised areas

• Leveraging small scale

funding

Private DBO • Larger scale

• Low public burden • Funding threshold

• Limited control • Sufficient funding to attract

operators

• Effective transferral of risk

Public

outsourcing • Public financial

stability with private

expertise

• Greater control

• Reduced benefit to

private sector

• Additional

bureaucracy

• Requirement for on-going

control

• More conservative

operators

Joint Venture • Risk sharing • Potential conflicts of

interest • Public/private interests

closely aligned

Public DBO • Public organisation

has full control • Size and scope limited

by public expertise • Requirement for absolute

control

• Inspirational investment

Summary of pros and cons of investment models

Choice of investment model

Each investment model will be applicable in different situations

Page 8: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

The guide is illustrated with findings from operational projects

8 Choice of investment model

Page 9: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Overall recommendations are focused on delivering maximum benefit to end users

Socio economic benefit must be managed alongside project

sustainability to deliver long term benefits

Long term control by public sector can protect end user benefit,

however the private operators can bring invaluable expertise

Sustainability is critical as socio-economic benefits will take time

The bottom up model may suit small scale fibre projects

Long term non-profit view of end users suits the fibre business

case, but this may be difficult to leverage on a large scale

Small investments can provide a catalyst through partnerships

Open and non-discriminatory access to infrastructure supports

effective competition

However, the investment requirements for passive and active

access must be carefully considered

9 Overall recommendations

Page 10: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

The guide also covers funding, state aid and the steps to broadband delivery

10 Overall recommendations

Preparation

and

planning

EU funding

application

Procurement

design

State aid

compliance

Procurement

activity

Contract

award

Broadband

delivery

Page 11: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Contact details

11

Pat Kidney

Senior Manager, Head of Ireland

[email protected]

Analysys Mason Limited

Suite 242, The Capel Building

Mary's Abbey

Dublin 7, Ireland

Tel: +353 1 602 4755

Fax: +353 1 602 4777

www.analysysmason.com

Registered in Ireland IR304061

Page 12: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Bottom-up model

Overview of model

Group of end users oversee the contract to build and

operate their own local network

12 Investment model summary

Advantages

Long-term, non-

profit view, suitable

for high-cost

infrastructure (e.g.

FTTH)

Focuses demand

and encourages

local social cohesion

Disadvantages

Difficult to replicate

local “intensity” on a

large scale

Localised

deployments, with

risk of differing

technologies

Recommended use

For targeting

localised areas and

for gaining the most

benefit from small

amounts of funding

Page 13: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Private design build and operate model

Overview of model

Managing Authority provides a grant to private sector to

assist in deployment of new network

13 Investment model summary

Advantages

Larger scale (than

bottom up)

Low public burden,

which can lead to

faster deployments

Disadvantages

There is a minimum

funding threshold to

attract private

interest

Limited control over

operations may

reduce the socio-

economic impact

Recommended use

Larger-scale

Where the level of

funding attracts

private interest

Where the network

operations (and risk)

can be transferred to

private sector

Page 14: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Public outsourcing model

Overview of model

Single contract for construction and operation of network

but public sector retains ownership and some control

14 Investment model summary

Advantages

Public financial

stability with private

expertise

Greater control (than

private DBO)

Disadvantages

Reduced financial

benefit to private

sector (compared to

private DBO)

Additional

bureaucracy

Recommended use

Where Managing Authority requires a high level of control over the network

Where private operator has a more conservative view of risk than the private DBO model

Page 15: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Joint venture model

Overview of model

Ownership of the network is split between the public

and private sector

15 Investment model summary

Advantages

Potential financial benefit for both parties

The use of special-purpose vehicles can make the model very scalable, and allow alternative investment sources

Disadvantages

Potential conflicts of

interest may block

creation / successful

operation of the JV

Few examples of

implemented JVs to

indicate best

practice

Recommended use

Where the interests

of the public and

private sectors can

be closely aligned

Page 16: Broadband Investment Models - Government

18800-392

Public design build and operate model

Overview of model

Public sector owns and operates a network without any

private sector assistance

16 Investment model summary

Advantages

Managing Authority has full control to promote competition and enforce standards

Managing Authority can ensure socio-economic benefits are prioritised

Disadvantages

Size and scope

limited by public

expertise

Potentially excludes

private sector

expertise

Recommended use

Where a Managing Authority needs absolute control over network operations

Where targeted investment will inspire investment from private sources