市場調査レポート

低人口密度の地域でのPIA vs セルフビルド光ファイバー:財務分析

PIA versus Self-build Fibre in the Final Third: Digging into the Finances

発行 Analysys Mason 商品コード 249295
出版日 ページ情報 英文 PPT (61 slides)
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=102.95円で換算しております。
Back to Top
低人口密度の地域でのPIA vs セルフビルド光ファイバー:財務分析 PIA versus Self-build Fibre in the Final Third: Digging into the Finances
出版日: 2012年08月20日 ページ情報: 英文 PPT (61 slides)
概要

線路敷設基盤(PIA:Physical Infrastructure Access)は、ファイナルサードと呼ばれる低人口密度地域におけるFTTH事業を改善するものとして確実視されています。

当レポートでは、PIAと新しい土木工事技術がプロジェクトコストに与える影響について調査分析し、Openreach社の提供するPIAと土木工事技術によるコストの削減、プロジェクトコストへの影響因子、公的資金の導入による影響の分析、回収期間と収益率の推計などをまとめ、概略下記の構成でお届けいたします。

エグゼクティブサマリー

提言

イントロダクション

  • 人口密度の低下によるFTTH導入コストの大幅な上昇
  • 新規参入のインフラプロバイダー:セルフビルドか既存事業者の管路・電柱へのアクセスを借りるか
  • Openreachの提供するPIAの主なチャージ:既存事業者のチェンバー・管路・電柱の利用に関連
  • Openreachの管路・電柱レンタルチャージはEU内の他社と比較して競争力があるように見えるが、新参入者はさらなる値下げを期待している

土木工事技術

  • 多くの確立された土木工事技術が光ファイバーネットワークの構築に利用可能
  • スロットカット:導入コストを削減できるかもしれないため、多くの関心を寄せているが、幾つかの課題を解消する必要がある
  • やわらかい土壌ではダクトの設置に暗渠が利用できるかもしれない
  • 導入コストは地下ケーブルの代わりに架空光ケーブルの導入でも削減可能

モデリングアプローチ

  • CSPのファイナルサード地域でのインフラ導入のコスト推計のため高レベルのモデルを構築:セルフビルド vs PIA
  • 主な前提因子
  • ファイナルサード地域でのBTのアクセスネットワークの分析に地理的アプローチを利用
  • 2ケースでのモデル運用:セルフビルド vs PIA

結果

結果:セルフビルド

  • スロットカット・暗渠によるセルフビルド:導入コストを40%以上削減
  • スロットカット・暗渠によるセルフビルド:ジオタイプ6bでCPPPをGBP1570に、ジオタイプ7bでGBP2400に削減
  • スロットカット・暗渠によるセルフビルド:ジオタイプ6bでCPPCをGBP2840に、ジオタイプ7bでGBP3970に削減

結果:PIA

  • スロットカット・暗渠とPIAの利用:導入コストを50%以上削減
  • スロットカット・暗渠とPIAの利用:ジオタイプ6bでCPPPをGBP1055に、ジオタイプ7bでGBP1710に削減
  • PIAを利用すると導入コストは低くなるが、レンタルチャージが発生する、など

結果:財務パフォーマンス

  • セルフビルド:ジオタイプbで回収期間は通常10年以上
  • スロットカットによるセルフビルドの15年・25年のIRR(ジオタイプb):10%を大きく下回る
  • スロットカット・暗渠によるセルフビルドの15年・25年のIRR(ジオタイプb):10%を大きく下回る、など

感度分析

  • 総コスト:特に掘削ルートのユニットコストに影響を受ける
  • 10ヵ年の総コスト:管路の再利用のレベルに大きく影響を受ける、など

総論

  • 最低コストのケースで、回収期間は10年以上、財務利益は15年以上経過後にはじめて相当規模となる、など

付録

著者・Analysys Masonについて

図表

目次

Much is spoken about the ability of physical infrastructure access (PIA) to reduce the costs of entry for potential new access infrastructure providers, but what is the actual impact on financial performance?

PIA promises to improve the business case for fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) in the ‘final third' - that is, less-densely populated areas. In this report, we take a closer look at the impact of PIA and novel civil engineering techniques on project costs. We also assess the impact of these potential cost savings and of public funding on the financial performance of FTTH projects in such areas.

This Report provides:

  • an overview of the Openreach PIA offer and civil engineering techniques that can be used to reduce the cost of access infrastructure
  • an analysis of the likely reduction in one-off and recurring costs that could be achieved through the use of PIA, slot-cutting and mole-ploughing, broken down into the key cost categories
  • an analysis of the sensitivity of total project costs to each of the key cost categories
  • an examination of the impact of the potential cost reductions on the financial performance of infrastructure projects
  • an assessment of the impact of various levels of public-sector funding
  • conclusions on the financial characteristics of the projects, expressed in terms of payback period and rate of return.

About the author

Richard Linton (Consultant) has more than twenty years experience in the telecoms industry, and has worked as a Consultant for Analysys Mason for over eight years. He specialises in technical and commercial work for operators in both the fixed and mobile areas. He has worked overseas on many projects for a divers range of clients. Richard's main skills include cost modelling, market analysis and technical due diligence. He holds a first class honours degree in Physics and a PhD in Engineering.

Table of Contents

  • 7. Executive summary
  • 8. Executive summary [1]
  • 9. Executive summary [2]
  • 10. Recommendations
  • 11. Recommendations
  • 12. Introduction
  • 13. The cost of FTTH deployment increases sharply with decreasing population density, making the business case more demanding
  • 14. New-entrant infrastructure providers may self-build, or may rent access to the incumbent's ducts and poles
  • 15. The key charges in Openreach's PIA offer pertain to the use of the incumbent's chambers, ducts and poles
  • 16. Openreach's duct and pole rental charges appear competitive, compared with others in the EU, but new entrants hope for further reductions
  • 17. Civil engineering techniques
  • 18. A number of established civil engineering techniques may be used to build a fibre network
  • 19. Because it may reduce deployment costs, slot cutting is attracting a lot of attention, but some issues must be addressed
  • 20. Mole ploughing may be used to install duct relatively quickly in soft ground, after which fibre cables are blown into the installed duct
  • 21. Deployment costs may also be reduced by installing aerial optical cables, instead of underground cables
  • 22. Modelling approach
  • 23. We have built a high-level model to estimate the costs that a CSP would incur in deploying infrastructure via self-build or PIA in a final-third area
  • 24. Key model assumptions
  • 25. We used a geotyping approach to analyse the final third in BT's access network
  • 26. We ran the model for two main cases: self-build and use of PIA
  • 27. Results
  • 28. Results: Self-build
  • 29. Self-build with slot cutting and mole ploughing, instead of traditional trenching, could cut deployment costs by over 40%
  • 30. Self build with slot cutting and mole ploughing could reduce the CPPPs to GBP1570 for geotype 6b and to GBP2400 for geotype 7b
  • 31. Self build with slot cutting and mole ploughing could reduce the CPPC for to GBP2840 for geotype 6b and GBP3970 for geotype 7b
  • 32. Results: PIA
  • 33. Use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing, instead of traditional trenching, could cut deployment costs by 50% or more
  • 34. Use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing may reduce the CPPP to GBP1055 for geotype 6b and GBP1710 for geotype 7b
  • 35. Use of PIA has the potential to reduce the CPPC for - b - geotypes to GBP1910 for geotype 6b and GBP2820 for geotype 7b
  • 36. If PIA is used, it can lower deployment costs, but the CSP incurs rental charges that can still make a large contribution to total costs
  • 37. Annual rentals per premise passed are GBP6 - 11 for - a - geotypes, and GBP22 - 36 for - b - geotypes
  • 38. Results: Financial performance
  • 39. In order to assess financial performance, we have assumed that take-up evolves over time to reach 55 - 61%
  • 40. Self-build results in payback periods that are typically in excess of ten years for ‘b’ geotypes
  • 41. Self-build deployments using slot cutting have 15- and 25-year IRRs that are generally much lower than 10% for geotype ‘b’
  • 42. Self-build deployments using slot cutting and mole ploughing have 15- and 25-year IRRs that are also much lower than 10%, for geotype - b -
  • 43. Use of PIA shortens the payback period, but it is still ten years or more for ‘b’ geotypes
  • 44. Use of PIA with slot cutting improves 15- and 25-year IRRs, but they are still less than 10% for ‘b’ geotypes
  • 45. Use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing further improves IRRs, but they remain less than or about 10% for ‘b’ geotypes
  • 46. Sensitivity analyses
  • 47. Total costs are particularly sensitive to unit costs for digging routes
  • 48. The ten-year total cost is strongly sensitive to the extent to which distribution ducts can be re-used
  • 49. There may be limited scope to improve the financial performance of FTTH projects through the reduction of duct rental charges alone
  • 50. Conclusions
  • 51. For the lowest-cost case, financial returns are only significant over periods of more than 15 years, with payback periods of ten years or more
  • 52. Sourcing adequate amounts of capital for NGA infrastructure projects in final-third areas could prove to be challenging
  • 53. Annex
  • 54. Using PIA and aerial distribution, payback periods could be reduced to ten years or less for - a - geotypes, depending on the level of public funding
  • 55. Sensitivity analysis: impact of selected inputs on ten-year cost
  • 56. About the author and Analysys Mason
  • 57. About the author
  • 58. About Analysys Mason
  • 59. Research from Analysys Mason
  • 60. Consulting from Analysys Mason

List of figures

  • Figure 1: Cost of deployment of FTTH/GPON and FTTH/PTP, by cumulative population
  • Figure 2: Risks/issues and benefits of self-build and PIA
  • Figure 3: Rental charges for duct access, various European incumbents, 2011
  • Figure 4: Rental charges for pole access, various European incumbents, 2011
  • Figure 5: Open cutting
  • Figure 6: Slot cutting, showing rotary blade
  • Figure 7: Slot-cutting, completed installation
  • Figure 8: Mole plough
  • Figure 9: Mole ploughing, showing duct on drum
  • Figure 10: Optical cable for medium span applications: ADSS loose tube, gel-filled
  • Figure 11: Optical cable for drop applications: single-tube, gel-filled
  • Figure 12: Model architecture
  • Figure 13: Schematic representation of ‘a' and ‘b' geotypes
  • Figure 14: Definition of geotypes for BT's UK access network
  • Figure 15: Deployment costs for self-build using traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 16: Deployment costs for self-build using slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 17: Deployment costs for self-build using slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 18: CPPP for self-build using traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 19: CPPP for self-build using slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 20: CPPP for self-build using slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 21: CPPC for self-build using traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 22: CPPC for self-build using slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 23: CPPC for self-build using slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 24: Deployment costs using PIA with traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 25: Deployment costs using PIA with slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 26: Deployment costs using PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 27: CPPP using PIA and traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 28: CPPP using PIA and slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 29: CPPP using PIA, slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 30: CPPC using PIA and traditional trenching, by geotype
  • Figure 31: CPPC using PIA and slot cutting, by geotype
  • Figure 32: CPPC using PIA, slot cutting and mole ploughing, by geotype
  • Figure 33: Annual rental charges for use of PIA, by geotype
  • Figure 34: Composition of ten-year costs using PIA, with slot cutting and mole ploughing
  • Figure 35: Composition of 25-year costs using PIA, with slot cutting and mole ploughing
  • Figure 36: PIA annual rental per premise passed, by geotype
  • Figure 37: PIA annual rental per premise connected, by geotype
  • Figure 38: Take-up of wholesale FTTH services by retail services providers over 25 years, geotypes 6 and 7
  • Figure 39: Payback period for self-build deployment using traditional trenching versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 40: Payback period for self-build deployment using slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 41: Payback period for self-build deployment using slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 42: 15-year IRR for self-build deployment using slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 43: 25-year IRR for self-build deployment using slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 44: 15-year IRR for self-build deployment using slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 45: 25-year IRR for self-build deployment using slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 46: Payback period for deployment using PIA with traditional trenching versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 47: Payback period for deployment using PIA with slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 48: Payback period for deployment using PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 49: 15-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 50: 25-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 51: 15-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 52: 25-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 53: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7b deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various one-off costs, by input
  • Figure 54: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7b deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various rental costs, by input
  • Figure 55: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotypes 7'a' and ‘b' deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% decrease in re-use of various duct types, by geotype
  • Figure 56: Ten-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting in geotype 7b versus public sector contribution, by duct rental charge
  • Figure 57: 25-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting in geotype 7b versus public sector contribution, by duct rental charge
  • Figure 58: Payback period for deployment using PIA with slot cutting in geotype 7b versus public sector contribution, by duct rental charge
  • Figure 59: 25-year IRRs for self-build or use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 60: Payback periods for self-build or use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 61: 25-year IRR for use of PIA with slot cutting and mole ploughing versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 62: Estimated total cost of deployment using PIA with slot cutting, UK, by geotype
  • Figure 63: Deployment costs using PIA with or without aerial distribution, by geotype
  • Figure 64: Payback periods for use of PIA with aerial distribution versus public sector contribution, by geotype
  • Figure 65: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7a deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various rental costs, by input
  • Figure 66: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7a deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various one-off costs, by input
  • Figure 67: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7b deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various rental costs, by input
  • Figure 68: Increase in ten-year total cost of geotype 7b deployment using PIA with slot cutting caused by 10% rise in various one-off costs, by input
Back to Top