Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Singapore and Malaysia: worlds apart

Singapore and Malaysia are walking two very well distinguished roads toward NGA (next-generation access) - and Singapore proves vastly superior, we believe. Not only do they aim for nationwide FTTH (OK, that would be a little easier than in Malaysia), the network will also be structurally separated and hence providing full open access. Malaysia on the other hand opts for an extended regulatory holiday for Telekom Malaysia: until 2015! In the process, it will create a huge digital divide.

To freshen up your mind, here are the specs (comments welcome to add more).

Singapore:
  • Name: Next Generation National Broadband Network.
  • FTTP, but apparently no decision on active (P2P) or passive (PON) yet.
  • Targets: 1 Gb/s, reaching 60% by 2010 and 95% by 2012; universal service obligation from 2013.
  • Passive layer (NetCo): to be built by OpenNet, a consortium of SingTel (30%), Axia (30%), Singapore Press (25%) and Singapore Power Telemedia (15%); maximum state subsidy SGD 750m. Wholesale prices: 15 SGD/mo for residentials, 50 SGD/mo for businesses, no connection fee. Furthermore, SingTel will be allowed/forced to spin-off ducts and other infrastructure into an AssetCo. OpenNet will lease those assets from AssetCo.
  • Active layer (OpCo): winner to be announced 09Q1 (bidders: BT, DT, SingTel, Axia, StarHub, MobileOne, City Telecom); maximum state subsidy SGD 250m.
  • Service layer (RSPs): to be announced.
Malaysia:
  • Name: High Speed Broadband (HSBB) Project.
  • FTTH, EPON.
  • For high-density areas only. Target: 1.3m homes passed by 2012.
  • State to subsidise around 20% of the total cost ($3.3bn), Telekom Malaysia to be the rest.
  • No open access (regulatory holiday) until September 15, 2015.
  • More details 09Q1.

1 comment:

Sammael99 said...

Easy to forget that it's Malaysia we're talking about though. Not the same size, not the same development levels, not the same drive.

I think it's already stunning that Malaysia has the foresight to think that far. Sure, their plans don't meet our somewhat idealistic views of ideal deployment criteria for competition. But can we blame them ?