I hope this is the tip of the iceberg of better things to come.
One of the most disruptive ideas the EU is working on (among alternatives) is detaching the network from the operators. This can considerably reduce network capex, homogenise network technology and allow for a real single EU telecom space.
By having operators become clients of a single network users will benefit from increase pan-EU competition, with more competitive and transparent rates.
This has been partly done at national levels in similar sectors, specially in the gas and electricity sectors (see National Grid in the UK, Snam Rete Gas & Terna in Italy, etc.). Gas and electricity networks are private but regulated, and third parties have access rights to the network to retail gas & electricity. In this telecom case, operators don't have commodity risk, which makes third-party access to the network infinitely easier.
> One of the most disruptive ideas the EU is working on (among alternatives) is detaching the network utilizes operators.
Since i was quite young it blew my mind that we didn't have one universal network which every network utilises. It is clearly more efficient, removes redundancy, spreads costs.
It's not that crystal clear. I live in France now, where the last mile cables are detached from operators. As the cable to the place I live in is quite bad, no operator will ever do a thing about it. In Poland, it's still an anarchy... So when I receive bad service, I go to the competition and they put their own cable to my place. They have to compete on that part of quality of service, not just say "it's just bad around here, it's not our problem".
Networks can never work with capitalism, as there's more benefit to extending an existing network than creating multiple competing networks. Roads, Internet, wired phones. Thus the network might as well be owned and run by the government, and access to it sold to the public/companies.
I'm quite ignorant of the specifics of European and American telecom ecosystems. But I clearly remember the time when the network was owned and run solely by the Indian government. It was horrible. In the 80s, when we applied for a telephone line, we typically had to wait for about three years for it to be installed. To call someone in a different city, we'd have to place a "trunk call": call an operator, and request a line. The operator would call back when the line became available, typically an hour later. With private industry, even those who live each week hand-to-mouth can afford to carry around cell phones.
> Thus the network might as well be owned and run by the government...
Given a choice, I'd rather not live in such an ecosystem. Again.
Not really. You are referring to a privatisation, where most of its problems came from a lack of legal and regulatory framework. Germany, France and Spain have the train operator detached from the infrastructure/network, and they have the most developed rail networks in the world. But again, this is not the case. The telecom case is a rollup of assets into a NetworkCo, making all telecoms MVOs.
‘detached’ as in ‘different parts of the same company’ in Germany and a rather pro-SNCF entity in France. While this is generally a good idea, especially if you combine it with standard tickets s.t. you only need to buy one ticket even if you use multiple train operators on your route (cf. National Rail in the UK)[0], it is certainly not the reason France or Germany have the ‘most developred rail networks’: the reason for that is showing off to their neighbours, even if it sometimes doesn’t make much sense :)
[0] This only works in state-subsidised short-distance trains, long-distance trains not operated by Deutsche Bahn need different tickets, I believe the same goes for France.
Unfortunately you are mixing concepts and analogies. By detached I mean two independent companies, like I mention on the original comment. The rail-network analogy is not comparable to what I refer too. The energy sector analogy is a like-for-like example to the current telecom concept, again, like I mention in my original comment.
Could you explain how this Directive is likely to cause this? It seems significantly more likely, in my eyes, that this Directive will simply end up with even less competition than we already have, as large mobile networks across the EU will buy up smaller ones in other countries in a bid to reduce their costs when their customers roam.
If we want mobile networks detached from mobile infrastructure, we're going to have to legislate that, not piddle around with legislating roaming fees.
>homogenise network technology and allow for a real single EU telecom space.
Won't that lead to a slowdown in the development and implementation of new wireless technology? What incentive would governments have to upgrade existing cell towers to new technology?
Electric cables, water pipes, and gas lines don't need to be replaced every 5 years by new technology.
Tariffs/regulation can and do incentive investment in new technology. Incentives in wireless technology should be no different. Don't confuse that with the lifespan of an asset.
It sounds great on the base of it, but for a technology that hasn't completely matured it might be counterproductive. When deploying the next gen network, you'll have one big slow entity having to do it.
But for home internet connections that could be a good move.
If you have the "right regulatory structure", you might not need a giant private company holding everything. Just push the regulation every player in the field and have them follow the rules.
But I think it's actually the hardest part to solve, and the reason why I'm pessimistic about the whole thing.
One of the most disruptive ideas the EU is working on (among alternatives) is detaching the network from the operators. This can considerably reduce network capex, homogenise network technology and allow for a real single EU telecom space.
By having operators become clients of a single network users will benefit from increase pan-EU competition, with more competitive and transparent rates.
This has been partly done at national levels in similar sectors, specially in the gas and electricity sectors (see National Grid in the UK, Snam Rete Gas & Terna in Italy, etc.). Gas and electricity networks are private but regulated, and third parties have access rights to the network to retail gas & electricity. In this telecom case, operators don't have commodity risk, which makes third-party access to the network infinitely easier.
Fingers crossed.