Is there any information as to when a higher bandwidth can be expected in Thun (Schorenstrasse)? @Anonymous I once sent you my address via PM. Thanks for checking!
Directly in the city center, most of the buildings seem to be connected to glass, but in my case (approx. 2km from the train station) unfortunately no more than 30Mbit/s is possible.
Here’s a slightly different view of supposed progress.
This time even with different voices than Küenzler’s.
https://mobile2.tagesanzeiger.ch/articles/5a132311ab5c377364000001
The author is Stefan Nünlist, head of communications at Swisscom. Is a response to another article in the BaZ. The other articles are always based on statements from other market participants. If many things are now very distorted or even seriously misrepresented, then you just have to answer with facts.
It is actually self-explanatory that the interests of the various participants in the telecom market do not coincide.
The classic telcos, the cable network providers, the property owners and the tenants as consumers of the service offerings all have (whether due to history or economic reasons) sometimes contradictory expectations of the regulation of the framework conditions.
Legislation must fulfill the task of ensuring that the whole thing is fairly fair and that no individual can simply rip off the others. In the sense of a good Swiss compromise, the task is probably well accomplished if the average level of dissatisfaction is evenly distributed among those involved.
But if you now consciously look at the interests of the customers (which of course all providers always claim to do anyway, regardless of what they actually do) then it becomes apparent that there is still free and fair competition between providers There is far too much forced bundling in the products, and this is also permitted by current legislation.
Today, access (access to the customer’s Internet socket) is still very closely linked to the respective network provider and the products and services that customers can subscribe to, which are usually only available as a compulsory combination.
This leads, for example, to the situation for many non-fiber optic customers who do not live in big cities, where the “best” offer for them is actually Internet via the fast cable network, TV as a comfortable IP TV offer and landline telephone is not available at all from a freely selectable provider.
Unfortunately, this situation, which is unsatisfactory for many customers, only has advantages for the two major providers. Forced bundling allows:
The disadvantaged in this tendentious duopoly in the Swiss broadband market are essentially the customers and the smaller third-party and OTT service providers.
In my opinion, the exciting thing about this current revision of the law is whether there will be increased measures for freely available network access on the much-cited “last mile”, bans on extensive compulsory bundling of providers, and generally better framework conditions for freely available “OTT offers”. or whether the whole thing can once again be put to sleep in the “relatively harmonious” complacency of the current duopoly through the intensive lobbying of the telcos.
In principle, it is up to Parliament to determine the way forward. It could give the interests of customers and economic efficiency a little more weight than the individual corporate interests of the large telcos…
We can be excited and we’ll see…
Hobby-Nerd ohne wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeiten zur Swisscom
@Werner: I thought they had already thrown out the unbundling thing, just like net neutrality?
He himself cannot believe what the Swisscom person is parodying. Even if CityCable in Lausanne were to let other providers access their network (which cable operators actually never do - the EBL case in Baselland is the absolute exception, not the rule), it’s only about the Internet. Since UPC, like Swisscom, is in the bundle madness phase, that wouldn’t fit at all because where do you get the bandwidth to transmit all TV channels in parallel?
And what should Sunrise say to its shareholders - sorry, we paid too much? Every percent discount on BBCS prices is a success. When Sunrise paid itself 100 million too much in 2012 because of a license promotion process tailored to Swisscom (a rogue who thinks evil of the fact that the licensee is also the majority shareholder in the big winner of the promotion), it didn’t mean we paid too much - but talk to them People who then had to save the Betrag through mass layoffs - then you know what’s going on.
Or what should the other providers mentioned do other than buy from Swisscom? Build your own network? Is anyone really so naive today as to believe that this is worthwhile for a private provider who has to deliver returns to his investors? Look who has built networks in the last few years: only EWs, with the state behind them. Even the existing networks were not built in competition - cable was the only solution for TV, and there was even a legal monopoly for telephony. Nowadays, no additional mobile phone providers even dare to come to Switzerland - because it is simply not worth building an additional network. Since the cablers don’t let you access the network, you only have the Swisscom offer or you withdraw from the market.
There is only a reasonably functioning market in Switzerland where an FTTH network was created using the OpenAccess process. If things go well, everyone else has 2 providers - namely the ones who own the network, i.e. Swisscom and possibly Kabler if there is one where you live and your house is also connected. The BBCS offers bring little competition - you can also see this in the market share figures for DSL offers (Sunrise has around 10% if I remember correctly, the rest is Swisscom and a few squashed little ones who don’t make the roast tasty) .
Last but not least, due to the network topology, no other provider can invest anymore - previously it was still possible to rent the line from the headquarters to the customer. With DSL this is no longer practical today because most copper lines no longer end in the telephone exchange, but in the house (FTTB), on the street (mCAN with FTTS), or in the neighborhood (PUS - FTTC). This leaves only reselling.
Interesting report on bakom.admin.ch %20hochbreitband.pdf.download.pdf/WIK-bericht%20Hochbreitband_final.pdf) on broadband expansion in Switzerland:
"WIK-Consult report
Study for the Federal Office of Communications
“Modeling the costs of a comprehensive high-broadband network in Switzerland”
Including calculations regarding profitability.
@Anonymous Swisscom is intentionally expanding copper.
1. Doesn’t have to create new access to the house and inside the house and doesn’t have to deal with the homeowner. (Huge cost savings). In addition, only 10% of customers use a fiber optic connection that has one available. As long as copper cables can be used to their maximum speed, FTTH will no longer be expanded.
2. The DSLAM’s/CAN’s are being built closer and closer to the customer, so that it is no longer worthwhile for third-party providers to build their own networks. This prevents exclusive or innovative products from being created for customers.
3. Requirement of third-party providers: You must use Swisscom’s wholesale service in order to be able to offer your products to customers. (3. Provider depends on the infrastructure ((expansion) of Swisscom)).
Interesting report, but probably without influence on the ongoing revision in Parliament.
State regulation would actually do well to give preference to the halting FTTH expansion with free network access for all competitors.
The most sustainable option for customers and also with the most potential for the future would certainly be FTTH in all densely populated areas.
Unfortunately, as always, the lobbying of the duopoly of Swisscom and the large cable network providers will probably prevail in parliament and everything will remain, as usual, with a suboptimal patchwork that protects the interests of the large providers.
Presumably it will only be possible to break through the Gordian lobbying node of provider interests that optimize profits even in basic infrastructure if one day broadband connection is legally defined as a real public service, analogous to electricity and water supply.
Hobby-Nerd ohne wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeiten zur Swisscom
You can just delete “densely populated”. “90% of the apartments in all communities” fits better, otherwise the definition of “densely populated” will be argued
In the large canton the train travels in a different direction:
Counties want fiber optic broadband expansion consistently into the home
Broadband expansion: fiber optic instead of copper
I just think it’s a shame that as a customer you can’t say I would like an FTTH and cover the costs myself. When I look at the individual costs per customer in this report, I would very much like to do it myself, but you don’t have the option.
As a customer you are simply dependent on Swisscom or UPC/Quickline and they only do the very least everywhere and then boast about how much you are investing in the expansion and what you are not doing. As a very interested customer, I don’t notice much of it until recently For a few years the speeds have doubled every year, but neither Swisscom nor UPC have done anything in this area in the last 3 years apart from a minimal increase and mostly with the smallest subscriptions, not with the top customers, but You talk about new technologies etc. at every opportunity. It should be clear to everyone that we are certainly in the minority, but I still expect a little more flexibility from the providers. After all, expanding FTTH is a project lasting 30-50 years, as was the case with copper. Depending on developments, much longer. That’s why I don’t understand this fussing over costs. Expanding 2-3 times until you get to FTTH will definitely cost more than doing it all in one go. If 2-3 large cities had been connected every year since 2008, significantly more would have been connected today, but no, after the top 5 cities it was over and you have to be content with FTTS etc. But of course you have to pay the same as the customer in Zurich with 1Gbit in both directions . This is what is called fair pricing. But of course, as long as everyone does it like that, nothing will change.
If someone were to jump over the shadows and do something for the top users, they could certainly win a lot of customers, especially since we would be happy to pay a little more if the service is good. But no one seems to care.
It’s not as easy as you see it and it’s not just the providers that matter!
[http://www.glasfibronetz-schweiz.ch/Aktuelles/News/Ausbau Dynamics-riskdet.aspx](http://www.glasfibronetz-schweiz.ch/Aktuelles/News/Ausbaudynamics- dangerdet.aspx)
Installationen, Netzwerk, Internet, Computertechnik, OS Windows, Apple und Linux.
