"Open Access" is experiencing a return to prominence in fixed telecoms. Sadly, the term "open access" is increasingly and deliberately being distorted by some broadband operators that claim to provide it when in reality they do not. It's a bit like "fiber broadband," which can leave some customers scratching their heads when they look at the copper connection into their homes: There is no legal or industry standard definition of open access, and the term is therefore widely abused.
On the other side, I frequently see RFPs for town networks (yes, I'm looking at you, the US of A) that specify open access without the author really understanding what it is and how the business model should work.
Fascinating to see how much of this is coming true!
It is widely accepted that, in the long term, traditional copper pair connections to homes and businesses will be replaced by fibre. Larger businesses have had such fibre connections for some years already. Such fibre local loops have a lower total life cost and offer much more potential bandwidth for the customer. In short, fibre is cheaper and better than copper. So why is there no rush towards what we call the Fibre Switchover? A very limited number of operators worldwide are already making this type of switchover but it seems to us that a combination of financial constraints and anomalous regulatory custom and practice are hindering more rapid progress in Europe. To take fibre into every home in the EU27 - excluding the 40% in urban areas that we assume will take cable broadband – will cost an estimated €272 billion. We believe ~€11 billion has already been invested so the investment still required is €261 billion. The industry invests roughly €20 billion per annum in fixed networks but on average over the last four has invested less than €3 billion p.a. of that in fibre. At that rate, it will take 92 years to achieve the Fibre Switchover.