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:
- Swisscom does not have to replace its long-depreciated but technically outdated copper cables because customers can be acquired with the TV offer and then simply have to accept the “lame” Internet
- Cablecom, with its cable connection’s faster Internet access than “copper”, prevents its customer base from switching to the more convenient IPTV offers
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.
3 months later
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.
@WalterB wrote:
It’s not as easy as you see it and the providers aren’t the only deciding factor!
[http://www.glasfibronetz-schweiz.ch/Aktuelles/News/Ausbau Dynamics-riskdet.aspx](http://www.glasfibronetz-schweiz.ch/Aktuelles/News/Ausbaudynamics- dangerdet.aspx)
That’s bullshit, sorry…each provider only looks for itself and only invests where it’s worth it for you, which is 90% only in the big cities. I don’t see anything at risk because it won’t change anything.
The cable providers always boast that they provide the same performance everywhere, even in the countryside. My experience is that for 2.5 years I didn’t even receive 20% of the service at peak times because the Anschluss was so massively overbooked. It was only after legal protection was activated that the Anschluss was expanded and I retroactively received 50% of the subscription costs, but I still get it today I only do about 70% in the evenings and I don’t even live far away. The providers are all making a killing and ripping off our customers wherever they can. If you then read that an expansion should only cost EUR 50-100 per customer and you don’t manage to implement it, but at the same time you increase the subscription costs and simply withhold the VAT (with 1.2 million customers and a few centimes per customer, everyone can calculate for themselves ), etc.
Why can’t they get together to build a decent network and everyone makes their own offers and the customer can choose where they want to get their subscription? Or then you should do it that way and expand the ones you want and they are happy to pay more than 90 per month. Those that don’t need it can be left on copper. When I read that only about 15% of them could actually have booked an FTTH Anschluss, I really wonder why a big city is completely expanded and others who want one are left behind. You can also sign long-term contracts like with cell phone subscriptions, for example. You build a Anschluss if I commit to paying you a subscription of, say, 200 per month for 3 years. I’m happy and have an FTTH and have to pay this Betrag for 3 years, so the provider has a good Betrag of his costs back in 3 years and can continue to benefit from this Anschluss for the next 50 years, etc. I have lots of ideas. Nobody should tell me that it is too expensive. A Swisscom makes billions in profits every year and all other providers often make 2-3 digit millions. You just try to squeeze the lemon for as long as you can and as long as 80% of the customers are satisfied, the rest don’t care at all.
Oh, it doesn’t matter, it’s no use anyway, I probably won’t have 1gbit in both directions before 2025, if at all, and then others will probably have already reached 5-10gbit. I’m curious to see what’s happening in Germany, I think they’ve gotten it and are giving it a lot more gas in this area. If they do it the way you read, they’ll have overtaken us in 2-3 years.
@fabian86 wrote:
Well, so far I haven’t found any relatives/acquaintances in the checker that g.fast is supposed to come…
With us g.fast will be bookable in April. Probably 500/120. It’s a shame it’s not possible to offer 300/300, it would suit me much better. I’ve tried everything to get an FTTH, but nobody is really willing to do anything about it, it’s better to tear up the road again in a few years.
@Thomy22: Well, if that’s your opinion… why don’t you become a provider yourself if you can get really rich there…?
Anyway, you can look at it however you want.
But IMHO you’re wrong with the Germany comparison, they’ve screwed it up so badly, it couldn’t be worse.
Today you get _guaranteed_ 64Kb/s (ISDN, payable per minute) in Germany. In Switzerland it is 3Mb/s, even in the smallest village.
I’ll bet you a nice dinner that Germany will NOT overtake us in the next 3 years.
See you at the beginning of 2021 🙂
Greeting
NotNormal
5G seems to be quite interesting for future bonding - although I would prefer FTTH or FTTS with g.fast because there is definitely less radiation in the air….
But since FTTH and FTTS are moving further into the distance “thanks” to the current, more bad than good 4G bonding, I still hope for “soon” 5G bonding…..
….keep on rockin'
@POGO 1104 Telekom plans to use G5 for the last mile to the customer.
