- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
http://tinyurl.com/l7lh9n2
Provides quite an interesting comparison between Stockholm and Copenhagen.
For those that don't want to read the whole report
Stockholm and Copenhagen are relatively similar in terms of size population and economy.
It is particularly interesting to compare the broadband situation in the two cities, since diametrically opposite conclusions were reached in connection with the deregulation of the telecom market , as to who should own
the ICT infrastructure and how this should be organised.
Stockholm chose, as already described, to view the ICT infrastructure as something that should be accessible to everyone and be delivered by a neutral player in order to create competition.
Copenhagen opted , like most of Europe, to see the ICT infrastructure as the direct prerogative of the market and telecom operators.
This has resulted in the incumbent player TDC being the one who owns and controls most of the ICT infrastructure in Copenhagen.
After about 20 years, it is interesting to see what differentiates the two cities.
Regarding the development of the fibre network, barely 20% of multi-dwelling units in Copenhagen are connected, to be compared with more than 90% in Stockholm.
This means that in Stockholm there are considerably more people that can get high speed broadband, and the cost for a broadband provider to reach customers is lower because the passive infrastructure (representing around 80% of total investment) is already there.
Even the price of dark fibre, the basic ICT infrastructure, is significantly lower in Stockholm than in Copenhagen for both consumers and enterprises.
While in Stockholm all those who need fibre can design their network structure themselves , in Copenhagen the design possibility is heavily limited because the dominant player chose to build a the network frugally, and designed to meet their own service – delivery needs.
The result is a fibre – poor network, which decreases flexibility and design possibility drastically for other operators.
The low level of fibre deployment in Copenhagen also affects the possibility of Symmetric high – speed broadband connection . Hence, while broadband at 100 Mb/s speed both downstream and upstream is common for the majority of residents in Stockholm, it is virtually impossible for households in Copenhagen.
Moreover , the price of a n asymmetric broadband connection (with low upstream speed) in Copenhagen is almost twice the price of a symmetric Broadband connection (with high upstream ) speed in Stockholm.
This has also a strong impact on the business climate, as the possibilities for data communication are crucial for the business creation.
It is symptomatic for instance, that more and more international enterprises have chosen to locate their Scandinavian headquarters in Stockholm in 2009, Stockholm had 69% more establishments than Copenhagen (compared to 10% in 2006)
Provides quite an interesting comparison between Stockholm and Copenhagen.
For those that don't want to read the whole report
Stockholm and Copenhagen are relatively similar in terms of size population and economy.
It is particularly interesting to compare the broadband situation in the two cities, since diametrically opposite conclusions were reached in connection with the deregulation of the telecom market , as to who should own
the ICT infrastructure and how this should be organised.
Stockholm chose, as already described, to view the ICT infrastructure as something that should be accessible to everyone and be delivered by a neutral player in order to create competition.
Copenhagen opted , like most of Europe, to see the ICT infrastructure as the direct prerogative of the market and telecom operators.
This has resulted in the incumbent player TDC being the one who owns and controls most of the ICT infrastructure in Copenhagen.
After about 20 years, it is interesting to see what differentiates the two cities.
Regarding the development of the fibre network, barely 20% of multi-dwelling units in Copenhagen are connected, to be compared with more than 90% in Stockholm.
This means that in Stockholm there are considerably more people that can get high speed broadband, and the cost for a broadband provider to reach customers is lower because the passive infrastructure (representing around 80% of total investment) is already there.
Even the price of dark fibre, the basic ICT infrastructure, is significantly lower in Stockholm than in Copenhagen for both consumers and enterprises.
While in Stockholm all those who need fibre can design their network structure themselves , in Copenhagen the design possibility is heavily limited because the dominant player chose to build a the network frugally, and designed to meet their own service – delivery needs.
The result is a fibre – poor network, which decreases flexibility and design possibility drastically for other operators.
The low level of fibre deployment in Copenhagen also affects the possibility of Symmetric high – speed broadband connection . Hence, while broadband at 100 Mb/s speed both downstream and upstream is common for the majority of residents in Stockholm, it is virtually impossible for households in Copenhagen.
Moreover , the price of a n asymmetric broadband connection (with low upstream speed) in Copenhagen is almost twice the price of a symmetric Broadband connection (with high upstream ) speed in Stockholm.
This has also a strong impact on the business climate, as the possibilities for data communication are crucial for the business creation.
It is symptomatic for instance, that more and more international enterprises have chosen to locate their Scandinavian headquarters in Stockholm in 2009, Stockholm had 69% more establishments than Copenhagen (compared to 10% in 2006)