Open access broadband networks in Alberta, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In policy debates about the appropriate regulation of next generation fibre access networks, a good deal of attention has been paid to various forms of 'separation' between network, wholesale and retail operations. This discussion is no longer theoretical, because 'open access' next generation networks are now operating or being constructed. This paper investigates four different models around the world, each at different stages of deployment: (1) Alberta, Canada, where a commercial company Axia has been operating the province-wide 'SuperNet' since 2005. This is an optic fibre network connecting 4700 sites (provincial government and municipality offices, health and education sites, libraries) in 27 urban and 402 rural communities. Axia is the government's service provider across the whole network and the wholesaler of capacity to retail providers in the rural communities; (2) Singapore, where a network is under construction taking fibre to 1.12 million residential premises and 152,000 other premises. Separate companies are building the physical infrastructure ('Net Co') and installing the electronics and network termination devices in customer premises and operating the network ('Op Co'); (3) Australia, where a national FTTP network is being built to reach 93% of households and businesses. Wireless will be used to deliver download speeds of at least 12 Mbps to the other 7%. Around 200,000 households will get FTTP in Tasmania, where services commenced in mid-2010; and (4) New Zealand, where the national government has promised 'superfast broadband' within six years to all businesses, schools and health services, greenfields developments and some residential users, and to 75% of the population within ten years. Drawing on interviews conducted in the four territories in 2009 and 2010, the paper will investigate the common, contrasting and unique features of these four models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".