Open network?

In an article at IDG, it is described that the IT Minister tomorrow (Wednesday) will launch a new open network in Stockholm. That is also what press release from the government say. But, is it an open network she launches?

According to the IDG article, the fiber network she is opening is actually neutral. Anyone can rent the dark fiber from the provider of the fiber. But what about Internet access, and services? The issue the article bring up is the fact the providers of services (on top of ip) that the households can choose from are selected by the owner of the buildings. Not by the people living there. And, that payments are such that the flow of money implies about 150SEK/month is moved from the household to the broadband provider. Or rather, from the owner of the building to the broadband provider. This in turn implies this is a hidden cost of 150SEK/month that of course is taken from the money the household pay in rent for the apartment.

The keywords here are “open” and “hidden cost”.

Anyone should be able to compete and invent new business models. But claiming something is open when in reality first of all the house owner select what services are available (and not the end user themselves), and then charge as much as 150SEK/month in hidden costs.

That is just too much, and not a very healthy description of what an Open Network is. I thought Open implies the end user can choose to use whatever service providers they want? And on top of this, I claim it is more expensive to run a network like this than just providing IP packets.

Only future will tell. For example if the consumer rights organisation or the competition people in sweden start to look at this case.