Techno-Economic Assessment in Communications: Models for Access Network Technologies

Carlos Bendicho Independent ICT Researcher, ACM Member, IEEE Communications Society Member, FITCE Member, Spain

e-mail: carlos.bendicho@coit.es

Abstract—This article shows State of the Art of techno-economic modeling for access network technologies, presents the characteristics a universal techno-economic model should have, and shows a classification and analysis of techno-economic models in the literature based on such characteristics. As a result of his research in this direction, the author created and developed a Universal Techno-Economic Model and the corresponding methodology for techno-economic assessment in multiple domains, currently available for industry stakeholders under specific licence of use.

Index terms— Techno-economic; model; access network; technical; economical; viability; feasibility; access; modeling; assessment; SDN; SD-WAN; NFV

I. INTRODUCTION The development and evolution of Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) technologies have created a myriad of different SD-WAN vendor solutions. Besides, some telecom operators are offering SD-WAN as a service. SD-WAN adoption rate is still slow but current context requires organizations to evolve WAN networks towards SD-WAN leveraging enhanced monitoring capabilities, QoS and Security policies application and Virtual Network Functions (VNF) execution either from Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) or from any other point in network as for example a datacenter. All this increases technical complexity and makes it difficult for organizations to take decision about choosing a SD-WAN solution as they need an effective techno-economic assessment of different SD-WAN solutions. Based on the author´s doctoral dissertation [82], this paper presents State of the Art of Techno-Economic Assessment in Communications, focusing on models for access network technologies. Dr. Carlos Bendicho holds M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Telecommunications Engineering from Bilbao School of Engineering, University of the Basque Country, Spain. He is also MBA from Technical University of Madrid and MIT Sloan Executive Program in Artificial Intelligence and Strategy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Techno-economic models in the literature are based on the traditional definition of techno-economic model as "method for evaluating the economic feasibility of complex technical systems," according to the thesis of Smura [1]. Regarding the origin of the techno-economic modeling, Smura writes [1]: "The nature of techno-economic modeling and analysis is usually future oriented and uses and combines a number of methods from the field of Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA). Among these methods is the cost-benefit analysis, scenario analysis, trends, expert panels and quantitative modeling (for an exhaustive list of other families and FTA methods, see TFAMWG, 2004, and [Scapolo & Porter, 2008, p . 152]). Although these methods and their combinations have been widely used by both academics and practitioners, academic work under the term "techno-economic" (eg .: modeling, analysis, evaluation, assessment) has mainly been published related to energy (eg [Zoulias & Lymberopoulos 2006]), biotechnology (eg .: [Hamelinck et al., 2005]) and telecommunications (ej.:[2]) especially by European research groups. In the context of telecommunications, the term 'techno- economic' was introduced during the European research programme RACE (Research into Advanced Communicacions for Europe) in 1985-1995. Early techno-economic modeling work was done in the RACE 1014 ATMOSPHERIC project [7] [8] [9] and the RACE 1044 project [10] where alternative scenarios and strategies for evolution towards broadband systems were analysed. Later, the RACE 2087 TITAN (Tool for Introduction scenarios and Techno-economic studies for the Access Network) project developed a methodology and a tool for techno-economic evaluation of new narrowband and broadband services and access networks (see [2] [11]). Since the late 1990s, many European research projects have used and extended the methodologies and tools created in the early projects. "

Note the following exception found in the literature to the traditional definition of a techno-economic model indicated by Smura in 2012. In 2010, [12] states: "Every business modeling should be accompanied by a technical and economic assessment so as to provide the reader with information on the financial perspective and the technical feasibility of a proposed investment project in telecommunications". The mentioned reference introduced the need for performance analysis of the access network, considering cost and reliability, but limited to relate both aspects in an indicator or specific figure of merit. Therefore, [12] suggests the assessment of technical feasibility, but eventually does not develop it. Following a review and detailed analysis of the models in the literature, they are imbued with the traditional definition of techno-economic model indicated by Smura [1] and are eminently oriented to deployment of access technologies from the perspective of telecom operators, manufacturers and standards organizations. Only some models have capacity for evaluation of different access technologies, and a few of them include evaluation for combination of access technologies. Only one model has shown a slight hint of guidance to end users or agents other than those mentioned. Furthermore, all output parameters are economical, except for some very exceptional wink. We proceed to show the review and analysis of the literature of techno-economic modeling of access technologies and the timing of projects related to public funding, given the interest in this research area shown by the institutions of the European Union (EU).

II. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE We have reviewed and analyzed the literature of techno-economic assessment models for access technologies, finding that it is based on the aforementioned traditional concept of techno-economic model enunciated by Smura [1], with the outstanding suggestion already indicated, and not developed [12]. We have selected a representative sample of the most relevant articles in literature which allow to provide insight on the State of the Art of techno-economic models for access technologies. Those papers are listed below in Table I.

TABLE I. PAPERS THAT DEVELOP OR USE MODELS OF TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Author, year

Title Techno-economic

model

Access Technologies

Reed & Sirbu (1989)

[13]

'An Optimal Investment Strategy Model for Fiber

to the Home'

dynamic programming

FTTH

Lu et al. (1990) [14]

'System and Cost Analyzes of Broad-Band

Fiber Loop Architectures'

Cost modeling B-ISDN, four alternative

architectures for fiber loop (loop

fiber) (ADS, PPL HPPL, PON)

Graff et al. (1990) [7]

'Techno-Economic Evaluation of the

Transition to Broadband Networks'

STEM Evolution of STM to ATM

Ims et al. (1996) [11]

'Multiservice Access nework Upgrading in Europe: A Techno-Economic Analysis'

TITAN xDSL, FTTx, HFC, FTTH

(PON)

Olsen et al. (1996) [2]

'Techno-Economic Evaluation of

Narrowband and Broadband Access

Network Alternatives and Evolution Scenario

Assessment'

TITAN ADSL, PON, CATV, ISDN, FTTx, HFC

Ims et al. (1997) [15]

'Risk Analysis of Residential Broadband upgrade in a Changing

Market and Competitive'

TITAN xDSL, HFC, ATM PON

Stordahl et al. (1998)

[16]

'Risk Analysis of Residential Broadband

upgrade based on Market Evolution and Competition'

OPTIMUM (based on TITAN)

FTTN, FTTB, HFC

Jankovic et al. (2000)

[17]

'A Techno-Economic Study of Broadband

Access Network Implementation Models'

P614 ISDN, xDSL, HFC, FTTx, WLL,

Satellite

Katsianis et al. (2001)

[18]

'The Financial Perspective of the Mobile

Networks in Europe'

TERA GPRS, UMTS

Welling et al. (2003)

[19]

'Techno-Economic Evaluation of 3G &

WLAN Business Case Under Varying

Conditions Feasibility'

TONIC UMTS, WLAN

Smura (2005) [20]

'Competitive Potential of WiMAX in the

Broadband Access Market: A Techno-Economic Analysis'

based on ECOSYS /

TONIC

WiMAX

Monath et al. (2005)

[21]

'Muse Techno-economics for fixed access network

evolution scenarios - DA3.2p'

MUSE FTTx, ADSL, SHDSL, VDSL,

xDSL over Optics

Sananes et al. (2005)

[22]

'Techno-Economic Comparison of Optical

Access Networks'

e-Photon / One FTTH

Lahteenoja et al. (2006)

[23]

'ECOSYS "techno-economics of integrated communication systems

and services". Deliverable 16: "Report on techno-

economic metholology" '

ECOSYS ISDN, B-ISDN (FITL), xDSL,

HFC, FTTx, WLL, Satellite, WiMAX

Olsen et al. (2006) [24]

'Technoeconomic Evaluation of the Major

Telecommunication Investment Options for

European Players'

ECOSYS / TONIC

HFC, ADSL, VDSL, LMDS, satellite, 3G,

WLAN, FTTC, FTTH,

Pereira (2007) [5]

'A Cost Model for Broadband Access

Networks: FTTx versus WiMAX'

Proprietary (BATET)

FTTx, WiMAX

Chowdhury et al. (2008)

[25]

'Comparative Cost Study of Broadband Access

Technologies'

Proprietary xDSL, cable modem, FTTx, WiFi, WiFi + Hybrid FTTx,

Hybrid FTTx + WiMAX

(WOBAN) Pereira & Ferreira (2009) [3]

'Access Networks for Mobility: A Techno-Economic Model for Broadband Access

Technologies'

Proprietary (BATET)

Static layer: FTTH (PON), xDSL, HFC, PLC;

Nomadica layer (mobile users):

WiMAX Van der

Merwe et al. (2009) [26]

'A Model-based Techno-Economic Comparison of

Optical Access Technologies'

Proprietary FTTH Optical Networks: GPON,

AON / Active Ethernet (AE),

P2P

Odling et al. (2009) [27]

'The Fourth Generation Broadband Concept'

ECOSYS FTTdp (G.fast)

Ghazisaidi & Maier

(2009) [28]

'Fiber-Wireless (Fiwi) Networks: A

Comparative Analysis of Techno-Economic EPON

and WiMAX'

Proprietary FTTH + WiMAX

Verbrugge et al. (2009)

[29]

'White Paper: Practical Steps in Techno-

Economic Evaluation of Network Deployment

Planning'

OASE FTTH

Casier et al. (2010) [30]

' "Overview of Methods and Tools" Deliverable

5.1. OASE '

OASE FTTH

Zagar & Krizanovic (2010) [31]

'Analyzes and Comparisons of

Technologies for Rural Broadband

Implementation'

Proprietary (Rural

Broadband in Croatia)

ADSL, WiMAX

Vergara et al. (2010)

[32]

'COSTA: A Model to Analyze Next Generation

Broadband Access Platform Competition'

COSTA (based on BREAD &

TONIC & MUSE)

FTTH / GPON, FTTN / VDSL,

FTTH / P2P, HFC / DOCSIS,

WiMAX, LTE Chatzi et al. (2010) [33]

'Techno-economic Comparison of Current

and Next Generation Optical Access Networks

Long Reach'

BONE FTTH duplicated for reliability and

FTTH ring WDM / TDM PON fibers

(SARDANA architecture)

Rokkas et al. (2010) [34]

'Techno-Economic Evaluation of FTTC /

VDSL and FTTH Roll-Out Scenarios:

Discounted Cash Flows and Real Option

Valuation'

ECOSYS FTTC / VDSL and FTTH

Casier et al. (2011) [35]

'Techno-Economic Study of Optical Networks'

OASE FTTH

Feijóo et al. (2011) [6]

'An Analysis of Next Generation Access

Networks Deployment in Rural Areas'

Proprietary (model costs)

FTTH (GPON), FTTC / FTTB /

VDSL, HFC DOCSIS 3.0, LTE

(4G) Martin et al. (2011) [36]

'Which Could be the Hybrid Fiber Coax role

of Next Generation Access Networks in?'

Proprietary (model costs)

FTTH (GPON), HFC DOCSIS 3.0

Machuca et al. (2012)

[37]

'Cost-based assessment of NGOA Architectures and Its Impact in the business

model'

OASE Wavelength-routed WDM

PON, Ultra Dense WDM, PON, AON

with WDM Van der

Wee et al. (2012) [38]

'A modular and hierarchically structured techno-economic model for FTTH Deployments'

OASE FTTH (PON) FTTH (AON)

Walcyk & Gravey

(2012) [39]

'Techno-Economic Comparison of Next-Generation Access

Networks for the French Market'

BONE xDSL, FTTH (GPON), FTTH

(LROA-SARDANA)

Pecur (2013) [4]

'Techno-Economic Analysis of Long-Tailed Hybrid Fixed Wireless

Access'

Proprietary FIWI (Fixed-Wireless); Fixed:

xDSL, FTTx, FSO; Wireless: WiFi, WiMAX, LTE

(4G) Bock et al. (2014) [40]

'Techno-Economics and Performance of

Convergent Radio and Fiber Architectures'

TITAN cost analysis

Active Remote Node PON FTTH

combining + Radio Base Station (architecture

Sodales) Moreira &

Zucchi (2014) [41]

'Techno-economic evaluation of wireless access technologies for network environments

campi'

TONIC & ECOSYS

WiFi, WiMAX, LTE

Ruffini et al. (2014) [42]

'DISCUS: An End-to-End Solution for Ubiquitous

Broadband Optical Access'

OASE FTTP

Katsianis & Smura

(2015) [43]

'A model cost data for radio access networks'

Proprietary LTE

Forzati et al. (2015) [44]

'Next-Generation Optical Access Seamless

Evolution: Results of the European Concluding

FP7 Project OASE'

OASE FTTH

Van der Wee et al. (2015) [45]

'Techno-Economic Evaluation of Open

Access on FTTH Networks'

OASE FTTH

Shahid & Mas (2017)

[80]

‘Dimensioning and Assessment of Protected

Converged Optical Access Networks’

Proprietary Converged Access Networks

(FTTB/FTTH //LTE)

Oughton et al. (2019)

[81]

‘An Open-Source Techno-Economic

Assessment Framework for 5G Deployment’

Proprietary 5G

From the literature review, it is found that there is an American seed in the field of techno-economic modeling for access networks, in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifically, in 1989, predictions were published regarding the most appropriate moment to invest massively in FTTH (Fiber To The Home) access technology deployment using dynamic programming [13], identifying possible paths for investment from a pure copper access network to a FTTH network through hybrid networks, concluding that the optimum time to launch a massive deployment would not be before 2010, considering prediction of costs, income and interest rates. In the 90s and starting from [14] and [7], studies begin to focus, as well as Smura commented in his doctoral dissertation [1], on the detailed cost analysis, out of the components with a ‘bottom-up’ approach but ignoring the end-user perspective, and always oriented to the deployment of access networks, in order to compare the economic feasibility of different technical alternatives and identify parts of the access network that have a greater contribution to costs, considering different scenarios of evolution of the access network, as well as changing patterns of demand. It is noteworthy that in the US they were contemplating FTTH scenarios [14], starting from ISDN Narrowband (integrated services digital network or N-ISDN) to the Broadband ISDN (B-ISDN: Broadband ISDN), with focus in the detailed cost analysis using learning curves for predicting component costs [46]. In the 90s, it also germinates techno-economic modeling for access networks in Europe, with the first European projects with public funding from the EU (European Union), also focused on the assessment of the costs and oriented towards evaluating technical alternatives for deployment and network evolution. We find highlighted in this European germination the STEM [7] model as the precursor of a more complete model TITAN [11] [15], including a costs prediction model based on the so-called extended learning curve [2], which provides greater accuracy to successive predictive models as OPTIMUM [16] and sets the basis to more complete models as TONIC [19] [47], all based on evolutions from TITAN and always oriented to choose the most appropriate alternative for

access network deployment by telecom operators, with the aim also to promote standards and recommendations. The stage of development for more complete techno-economic models, initiated and inspired by TITAN, begins its consolidation with ECOSYS model [20][48], which enhances traditional techno-economic modeling based on the calculation of economic indicators such as NPV (Net Present Value) with the DCF analysis (Discounted Cash flows), ROA (Real options analysis) inspired in the so-called financial options or futures, in order to improve the accuracy of economic output parameters, and allows the techno-economic evaluation of wireline, wireless, and mixed or hybrid technologies in different scenarios and geographical areas to cover [23] [24] [49]. As a result of this aforementioned consolidation with the ECOSYS model, a dissemination effect occurs beyond the projects with public funding from the EU, which is detected by identifying new proprietary models as the model [50] for PLC technology (Power Line Communications), [51] for optical networks, [52] for 3G-LTE, the BATET model [53][5], and its subsequent evolution distinguishing between fixed and nomadic layers, the latter for mobile users [3], identifying also general input parameters in which there is a slight orientation to end user incorporating bandwidth transmission and reception requirements. Outside the public funding of the EU, the COSTA proprietary model [32] arises modeling costs of access network and based on MUSE, an extension from TONIC for the whole access and aggregation network [21], which runs parallel to ECOSYS project. More proprietary models appear like [26] oriented to optical access technologies comparison, and [25], [28] for hybrid networks that combine FTTx and WiFi or WiMAX. The consolidation and dissemination continues. Multiple papers targeting specific scenarios that rely on the ECOSYS model are published as [27] oriented to FTTdp (Fiber To The Distribution Point) within the framework of the 4GBB initiative leading to the current G.fast standard [34]. The BONE project emerges, aimed at a future European optical network incorporating cost modeling for optical networks in the field of access/metro networks, seeking long range optical networks architectures to provide high reliability [33][54][55][39]. Under the BONE project, the article mentioned at the beginning of this section [12] is published, in which the assessment of the technical feasibility is suggested, after introducing the need for performance analysis of the access/metro network, considering the relationship between cost and reliability of the network. As stated before, [12] did not finally develop the evaluation of technical feasibility, but only limited to

relate cost and reliability in a specific indicator or figure of merit, in order to evaluate various technical alternatives for long range optical networks with different mechanisms to increase reliability (e.g.: duplication of fibers, duplication of fibers and OLTs, duplication of fiber-OLT-ONU). Fostered by public funding, emerges OASE project [29], which proposes a methodology based on the ‘Plan-Do-Check-Act’ (PDCA) by Shewhart/Deming, and adapts and reformulates it as ‘Scope-Model-Evaluate-Refine’, as well as a modular design of techno-economic modeling that integrates models and auxiliary methods around TONIC as ‘framework tool’ [30]. OASE extends view from ECOSYS, designing a modular framework for techno-economic modeling with the above methodology, enabling top-down and bottom-up approaches in techno-economic evaluation of optical access networks, becoming a model of relevance [56] [35] [57] [58] [59] [37] [38] [60] [61] [62] [63] [44] [64] [45]. The OASE model is used by other European projects in the field of optical networks, as DISCUS [42]. As a result of the mentioned spread effect, more proprietary models arise such as [65], [66], [67], [TS13] and [SIL13] for optical networks, [31], [68], [69], [70] [6], [71] and [72] for deployment of broadband in rural areas, [36] comparing FTTH and HFC DOCSIS 3.0, [4] for hybrid networks FiWi (Fixed-Wireless) which particularly distinguishes between investors and lenders related to financial agents. Reference [43] to deploy LTE networks in Finland, models power consumption of radio access data networks as a function of data traffic to deploy wireless access points [73]. Studies are also published based on the TONIC and ECOSYS models for specific scenarios (e.g.: wireless networks on campus) [41]. Projects with public funding from the EU emerge, relying on these consolidated tools, in order to assess new technologies, such as the IST-Sodales project developing an Active Remote Node FTTH combining PON + Radio Base Station (SODALES architecture), which evaluates it techno-economically using the TITAN tool [40]. More recently, [80] aims at converged accessed networks combining FTTH/FTTB and LTE, and [81] for 5G deployment. As mentioned, models in literature are based on the traditional definition of techno-economic model indicated by Smura [1], and are mainly oriented towards deployment of access network technologies from the perspective of operators, manufacturers and standardization bodies. Given the limited features that are detected in the literature regarding the ability of multiaccess comparison, combination of technologies, orientation to end user or other agents in the telecommunications sector, the market dynamics and the context already mentioned, we conclude that it is interesting to deepen into the characteristics that a

theoretical, universal and generalizable techno-economic model should have, which will be discussed in section IV.

III. CHRONOLOGY OF PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS At European level, public institutions of the European Union, have promoted and financed various projects in the past two decades, aimed at developing models for techno-economic evaluation of access technologies from the pioneers RACE 1014 ATMOSPHERIC, RACE 1028 REVOLVE, IBC 1044 RACE, RACE TITAN 2087, OPTIMUM AC226, AC364 TERA, IST-25172 TONIC, through EURESCOM, MUSE, BREAD, ECOSYS, OASE, etc. projects [7][8] [74][23][75][76][1]. Publicly funded projects mentioned above give rise to much of the literature, as can be seen in Table I, since many of the techno-economic models carry the name of the project that defines them. Other publicly funded projects also arise with different but related objectives, for example, related to backhaul or backbone networks that use and rely on techno-economic models developed by previous or parallel projects [77][42][40]. Techno-economic evaluation scenarios of above projects are closely related to the evolution of access technologies. In Fig. 1 the historical evolution of access technologies is shown, along with the timing of projects that develop or use techno-economic models, subject of literature in relevant publications and conferences. All publicly funded projects identified are European. No other publicly funded projects have been found in other continents. The literature references from other continents, on the other hand minority, come from private companies and some universities, as can be seen in Table I [13][14][28][4] and [79] related to ‘Digital India’ initiative that is based on a European model [78][32]. According to the above, and in light of the number of research projects in this area, funded by institutions of the European Union, there is an economic interest and public funding, which justifies further deepening into the development of techno-economic evaluation models for access technologies. It is observed that, despite having developed techno-economic models for access technologies by publicly funded projects, up to date it has not been identified a universal model for comparing any access technologies in any configuration or combination; which is oriented to any agent of the telecommunications sector; that makes it possible evaluation and comparison of technical feasibility and not only economical one, and that is flexible, extensible and integrable with other techno-economic models.

Figure 1. Historical evolution of projects that develop or use models of techno-economic assessment for access networks, along with the historical evolution of access technologies. Source: ICP-ANACOM, European Commission (ec.europa.eu) and websites of each project. Therefore, the review and analysis of the literature, the existence of a wide variety of settings and access technologies, the high cost of investment and maintenance of the access network as well as the significant volume of scientific production supported by EU public funding for projects that promote and use techno-economic modeling, lead to the conclusion that it is interesting to deepen and lay the foundations regarding the characteristics required to have a universal and generalizable theoretical model for techno-economic evaluation of access technologies, in order to develop a specific classification and more accurately detect areas of improvement in techno-economic models of literature.

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF A UNIVERSAL TECHNO-ECONOMIC MODEL

The features or characteristics a universal and generalizable theoretical model for techno-economic evaluation of access technologies should have are discussed below. The definition of these characteristics is based on a thorough study of the State of the Art, supplemented by author´s professional experience as a telecommunications engineer in designing innovative solutions in the field of access networks for different agents in the telecommunications sector:

• Multiaccess Universality: It must allow to

compare different current and future access technologies.

• Universality in Combination of technologies: It must allow technical and economic assessment of accesses made by combining different technologies.

• Universality in User orientation of technology: It should be a model oriented to telecom operators and customers, telecommunications services end users, as well as to any other agent of the telecommunications market, such as regulators, Communication Service Providers (CSP) or technological consultancy firms.

• Universality in incorporating "micro" and "macro" approaches: It must incorporate "micro" ('bottom-up') approach (from the perspective of customer or end user) and "macro" approach ('top-down') (from the perspective of the deployment), when assessing techno-economically access technologies.

• Orientation to User of the Model Requirements: It must consider the requirements by the user of the model, be this customer, operator or any other agent to appraise access technologies. This feature is related to the model methodology of application.

• Geographical Universality: It must allow its application in any geographic area or geotype, whatever its population density, population segments (households, businesses) and distribution are.

• Technical and Economic Universality: It must provide technical and economic input parameters and technical and economic output, in order to allow both technical and economic assessment of different access technologies.

• Extensibility and Flexibility: the model must be extensible and flexible. It should provide easiness to add new input and output parameters contributing to its universality.

• Technical and Economic Comparability: It must make it easy to compare both technical and economic results with other models.

• Predictive ability: It must allow to incorporate and make predictions for a certain period of time.

• Ability to integrate with other models: It must allow integration with other techno-economic models to favor the most complete assessment possible and facilitate the evolution of the Art.

V. CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF TECHNO-ECONOMIC MODELS FOR ACCESS NETWORKS Then we proceed to classify a selection of techno-economic models for access networks identified in the literature, based on the above characteristics for a universal and generalizable techno-economic model. We select a sample of 16 articles out of the 42 listed in Table I. The models for classification are selected by choosing 8 articles corresponding to models from public projects with EU funding, and 8 related to proprietary models (for which public funding has not been identified). Every characteristic is composed by several items in order to identify whether the model under study is compliant with each item and evaluate its degree of compliance with the whole characteristic. We list items considered for each characteristic in Table II.

TABLE II. ITEMS CONSIDERED FOR EACH CHARACTERISTIC

Characteristic Items Multiaccess Universality -Fixed Access Technologies

-Wireless Access Technologies -Mixed Access Technologies (Hybrid)

Universality in Combination of technologies

-Series Combination of Fixed Technologies -Series Combination of Fixed and Wireless Technologies -Parallel Combination of Different Technologies

Universality in User orientation of technology

-Oriented to Telcos (deployment KPIs) -Oriented to Customers (Usage KPIs) -Oriented to Other Agents

Universality in incorporating "micro" and "macro" approaches

-Incorporates “micro” approach (end user perspective) -Incorporates “macro” approach (telco deployment perspective)

Orientation to User of the Model Requirements

-Economical Requirements -Technical Requirements

Geographical Universality -Geographical Area Description -Existing infrastructure -Population Mix Description

Technical and Economic Universality

-Input Technical Parameters -Input Economical Parameters -Output Technical Parameters -Output Economical Parameters

Extensibility and Flexibility -Easiness to add new input parameters -Easiness to add new output parameters

Technical and Economic Comparability

-Technical Output Comparability -Economical Output Comparability

Predictive Ability -Period of Study as input parameter -Allows input parameters with time prediction

-Produces time prediction for output parameters

Ability to integrate with other models

-Allows to integrate as input other model output -Model logic allows to incorporate easily other models parameters

A. Overall rating and ranking In order to assess for each selected model the degree of compliance with the set of characteristics that is considered for a universal, scalable, flexible and generalizable techno-economic model, we use the following method, considering, for simplicity, that all items that compose a characteristic have the same weight:

• We assign ‘1’ value for each item of a characteristic when the model under study is compliant with such item, and assign ‘0’ value if the model is not compliant.

• We calculate the evaluation of each characteristic as the total sum of values for items that compose it.

• The total valuation for each model is the sum of the evaluations of all characteristics.

The result is shown in Table III. Normalizing for each feature in base 100, we obtain the degree of compliance of each model of the literature regarding the maximum possible score. The maximum score in 2016, when the author elaborated this study for first time, corresponded to [3] with a fulfillment of 56%, thereby identifying a gap of 44 points to 100%, showing the opportunity to deepen and research in the development of proposals that reach a higher degree of compliance. After the last update of the literature review in 2020, the máximum score corresponds to [80] with a fulfillment of 62% which shows an improvement but still leaving a gap of 38 points. The ranking of models presented in Table III shows, taking as reference the models [80] and [3] with greater compliance, that the path of improvement must focus on the following characteristics:

• Universality in Combination of access technologies

• Universality in User orientation • Universality in incorporating "micro" and

"macro" approaches • Orientation to User of the Model Requirements

([80] reached compliance but not the rest) • Technical and Economic Universality

([80] reached compliance but not the rest) • Flexibility and Extensibility • Technical and Economic Comparability

([80] reached compliance but not the rest) • Ability to integrate with other models

VI. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have shown:

• in section II, a review and analysis of the literature • in section III, a chronology of public projects with

EU funding that develop and / or use models of techno-economic evaluation.

• in section IV, the characteristics of a theoretical universal, scalable, flexible and generalizable techno-economic model for access technologies are discussed.

• in section V, a classification of techno-economic models of the literature is made, based on the characteristics of the theoretical universal and generalizable techno-economic model set out in section IV. A ranking of techno-economic models of the literature is presented based on this classification.

After the review and classification of literature, it has been found that all models are oriented to deployment from the operator's perspective, and none is oriented to the end user, except for some exceptional wink in [3] which includes as input parameter the minimum transmission and reception bandwidth, and [5] that talks about QoS and a concurrency factor. All of them incorporate the "macro" approach from the perspective of deployment, but none incorporates the "micro" approach (end-user perspective). Up to 2016, no model developed and provided technical output parameters, except BONE [12] suggesting an analysis of network performance, that eventually did not develop. However, in this last update after 4 years, two additional models have been identified with technical output parameters: [81] that includes capacity, coverage and energy efficiency as output parameters, and [80] which includes power consumption, availability and length of fiber related output parameters. Therefore, only these last two models of the literature allow the assessment of the technical performance of access technologies, while the rest lack technical comparability, in line with the traditional concept of techno-economic model stated by Smura [1]. Less than half of the models in the ranking, address a series combination of fixed access technologies. No model addresses the parallel combination of the same access

technologies to improve technical performance. Eventually, in 2017, [80] addresses the parallel combination of different access technologies, in order to increase technical performance of the equivalent access, although there was slight glimmer in [2] with HFC (CATV) in parallel with TPON by 1996. Only [3] and [4] include the series combination of fixed + wireless technologies. No model includes technical and economic requirements of the model user except [80], although oriented only to telecom operators. There is some slight hint of incorporating input information in [3] (minimum transmission and reception bandwidth), [5] (QoS and concurrency factor) and [6] which includes the Guaranteed Data Rate per User. However, no other model develops further this feature, incorporating, for example, a catalog or matrix of technical and economic requirements, as they all are oriented to the deployment of access technologies by telecom operators. No model is identified that allows to add new input and output parameters in a flexible and simple way, so it is concluded that they are not flexible and extensible, probably motivated by the fact that all focus mainly on the assessment of economical viability. No model includes the default logic for incorporation of other models parameters, thus limiting their ability to integrate with others. On the other hand, as stated before, all models but recent [80] and [81], aim to evaluate only the economical feasibility, lacking the assessment of technical feasibility. Therefore, the review, classification and analysis of the literature shows that there is currently room for improvement in order to develop models that meet the characteristics of a flexible, generalizable and scalable universal techno-economic model, which allow analysis and comparison of network access technologies, and probably their extension and applicability to other domains. As explained, it makes sense to deepen and research in the development of models for techno-economic assessment of network access technologies to achieve a higher degree of overall compliance, and in each of the characteristics, thus approaching the theoretical universal and generalizable techno-economic model. Such universal and generalizable models could also be used for assessment in other domains beyond network access technologies as, for example, to satisfy the aforementioned needs of SD-WAN solutions techno-economic assessment.

As a result of his research in this direction, the author created and developed a Universal Techno-Economic Model (UTEM) and the corresponding methodology to use it for techno-economic analysis, assessment and decision-making in multiple domains. Table IV shows author´s model reaches an overall compliance of 92% as validated in [82]. This model is currently available for industry stakeholders under specific license of use.

REFERENCES

[1] Smura, T. "Tecno-Economic Modelling of Wireless Network and Industry Architecture". Doctoral Dissertations, 23/2012. Aalto University Publication Series, 2012. Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Finland. ISBN 978-952-60-4525-2.

[2] Olsen, B. T. et al. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of Narrowband and Broadband Access Network Alternatives and Evolution Scenario Assessment". Journal of Selected Areas in Communications. IEEE 1996, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1184-1203.

[3] Pereira, J. P., Ferreira, R. "Access Networks for Mobility: A Techno-Economic Model for Broadband Access Technologies". Testbeds and Research Infrastructures for the Development of Networks & Communities and Workshops, 2009. TridentCom 2009.

[4] Pecur, D. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Long Tailed Hybrid Fixed-Wireless Access". Telecommunications (ConTEL), 2013 12th International Conference. IEEE, 2013, pp. 191-198.

[5] Pereira, J. P. "A Cost Model for Broadband Access Networks: FTTx versus WiMAX". Optics East 2007. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2007.

[6] Feijóo, C., Gómez-Barroso, J. L., Ramos, S. "An Analysis of Next Generation Access Networks Development in Rural Areas". FITCE Congress (FITCE), 2011. IEEE, 2011.

[7] Graff, pp., et al. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of the Transition to Broadband Networks". International Conference on Integrated Broadband Services and Networks, 1990. IET, 1990, pp. 35-40.

[8] Fisher, G. D., Tat, N., Djuran, M. "An Open Network Architecture for Integrated Broadband Communications". Integrated Broadband Services and Networks 1990, International Conference. IET, 1990.

[9] Fox, A. L., et al. "RACE BLNT: A Technology Solution for the Broadband Local Network". Integrated Broadband Services and Networks, 1990 International Conference. IET, 1990, pp. 47-57.

[10] Maggi, W., Polese, pp. "Integrated Broadband Communications Development and Implementation Strategies". Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal, 1993, vol. 5.5, pp.315-320.

[11] Ims, L., et al. "Multiservice Access Network Upgrading in Europe: A Techno-Economic Analysis". Communications Magazine, IEEE 1996, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 124-134.

[12] Kantor, M. et al. "General Framework for Techno-Economic Analysis of Next Generation Access Networks". Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), 2010 12th International Conference. IEEE, 2010.

[13] Reed, D. pp., Sirbu, M. A. "An optimal investment strategy model for fiber to the home". Journal of Lightwave Technology, 1989, vol. 7, no. 11, pp.1868-1875.

[14] Lu, K. W., Eiger, M. I., Lemberg, H. L. "System and cost analyses of broad-band fiber loop architectures". IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 1990, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1058-1067.

[15] Ims, L. A., Stordahl, K., Olsen, B.T. "Risk analysis of residential broadband upgrade in a competitive and changing market". Communications Magazine, IEEE 1997, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 96-103.

[16] Stordahl, K., Ims, L.A., Olsen, B.T. "Risk analysis of residential broadband upgrade based on market evolution and competition". International Conference on Communications (ICC98), 1998. Conference Record. IEEE 1998, vol. 2, pp. 937-941.

[17] Jankovic, M., Petrovic, Z., Dukic, M. "A Techno-Economic Study of Broadband Access Network Implementation Models". 10th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, vol I, MEleCon 2000.

[18] Katsianis, D. et al. "The financial perspective of the mobile networks in Europe". Personal Communications, IEEE 2001, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 58-64.

[19] Welling, I. et al. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of 3G & WLAN Business Case Feasibility Under Varying Conditions". Telecommunications, 2003. ICT 2003. 10th International Conference. IEEE 2003, vol.1, pp. 33-38.

[20] Smura, T. "Competitive Potential of WiMAX in the Broadband Access Market: A Techno-Economic Analysis". ITS, 2005.

[21] Monath, T. et al. "MUSE- Techno-Economics for Fixed Access Network Evolution Scenarios". Project Deliverable MUSE, DA3.2p, 2005.

[22] Sananes, R., Bock, C., Prat, J. "Tecno-Economic Comparison of Optical Access Networks". Transparent Optical Networks, 7th International Conference. IEEE, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 201-2014.

[23] Lähteenoja, M. et al. "ECOSYS: Techno-ECOnomics of Integrated Communication SYStem and Services. Deliverable 16: Report on Techno-Economic Methodology". ECOSYS, 2006.

[24] Olsen, B. T. et al. "Technoeconomic evaluation of the major telecommunication investment options for European players". Network, IEEE 2006, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 6-15.

[25] Chowdhury, pp., Sarkar, S., Reaz, A.A. "Comparative Cost Study of Broadband Access Technologies". International Symposium on Advanced Networks and Telecommunication Systems (ANTS), 2008.

[26] Van der Merwe, S., et al. "A Model-based Techno-Economic Comparison of Optical Access Technologies". IEEE Globecom Workshops, 2009.

[27] Ödling, pp., et al. "The Fourth Generation Broadband Concept". Communications Magazine, IEEE 2009, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 62-69.

[28] Ghazisaidi, N., Maier, M. " Fiber-Wireless (FiWi) Networks: A Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of EPON and WiMAX". Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) 2009, IEEE 2009.

[29] Verbrugge, S. et al. "White Paper: Practical Steps in Techno-Economic Evaluation of Network Deployment Planning". IBCN, Ghent University, Belgium. 2009.

[30] Casier, K., et al. "OASE: Overview of Methods and Tools. Deliverable 5.1". 2010. http://www.ict-oase.eu/public/files/OASE_D5.1_WP5_DTAG_rev2012.pdf

[31] Zagar, D., Krianovic, V. "Analyses and Comparisons of Technologies for Rural Broadband Implementation". Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM) 2009. 17th International Conference. IEEE, 2009, pp. 292-296.

[32] Vergara, A., Moral, A., Pérez, J. "COSTA: A Model to Analyze Next Generation Broadband Access Platform Competition". Telecommunications Network Strategy and Planning (NETWORKS). 2010 14th International Symposium. IEEE, 2010.

[33] Chatzi, S., Lazaro, J., Tomkos, I. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Current and Next Generation Long Reach Optical Access Networks". Telecommunications Internet and Media Techno Economics (CTTE), 2010 9th Conference. IEEE, 2010.

[34] Rokkas, T., Katsianis, D., Varoutas, D. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of FTTC/VDSL and FTTH Roll-Out Scenarios: Discounted Cash Flows and Real Option Valuation". Journal of

Optical Communications and Networking, 2010, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 760-772.

[35] Casier, K., Verbrugge, S., Machuca, C.M. "Techno-Economic Study of Optical Networks". IEEE Phonic Society (PHO), 24th Annual Meeting, 2011.

[36] Martín, A., Coomonte, R., Feijóo, C. "Which Could Be The Role of Hybrid Fibre Coax in Next Generation Access Networks?". Telecommunication, Media and Internet Techno-Economics (CTTE). 10th Conference. IEEE, 2011, pp.1-12.

[37] Machuca, C. M., et al. "Cost-based Assessment of NGOA Architectures and its Impact in the Business Model". 11th Conference on Telecommunication , Media and Internet Techno-Economics (CTTE), 2012.

[38] Van der Wee, M., et al. "A Modular and Hierarchically Structured Techno-Economic Model for FTTH Deployments. Comparison of Tecnology and Equipment Placement as Function of Population Density and Number of Flexibility Points". 16th International Conference on Optical Network Desing and Modeling (ONDM) 2012. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1-6.

[39] Walczyk, K., Gravey, A. "Techno-Economic Comparison of Next-Generation Access Networks for the French Market". Information and Communication Technologies, 2012, pp. 136-147. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[40] Bock, C., et al. "Techno-Economics and Performance of Convergent Radio and Fibre Architectures". Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), 2014 16th International Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1-4.

[41] Moreira, L., Zucchi, W. L. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of Wireless Access Technologies for Campi Network Environments". Telecommunications Symposium (ITS), 2014 International. IEEE, 2014.

[42] Ruffini, M., et al. "DISCUS: An End-to-End Solution for Ubiquitous Broadband Optical Access". Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2014, vol. 52, no. 2, pp.S24-S32.

[43] Katsigiannis, M., Smura, T. "A Cost Model for Radio Access Data Networks". Info 2015, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 39-53.

[44] Forzati, M., et al. "Next Generation Optical Access Seamless Evolution: Concluding Results of the European FP7 Project OASE". Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, 2015, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 109-123.

[45] Van der Wee, M., et al. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of Open Access on FTTH Networks". Optical Communications and Networking. IEE/OSA Journal of, 2015, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 433-444.

[46] Lu, K., Wolff, R., Gratzer, F. "Installed first cost economics of fiber/broadband access home". Global Telecommunications Conference and Exhibition. Communications for the Information Age, IEEE 1988, vol. 3, pp. 1584-1590.

[47] Monath, T., et al. " Economics of Fixed Broadband Access Network Strategies". Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2003, vol. 41, no.9, pp.132-139.

[48] Elnegaard, N. K., el al. "ECOSYS: Techno-ECOnomics of Integrated Communications SYStems and Services. Deliverable 11: Risk Analysis and Portfolio Optimisation". ECOSYS, 2005.

[49] Autio, T. "Broadcast Mobile Television Service in Finland: A Techno-Economic Analysis." Master´s Thesis, March 2007. Denmark-Technical and Economic Aspects, 2007.

[50] Tongia, R. "Can Broadband Over Powerline Carrier (PLC) Compete?. A Techno-Economic Analysis". Telecommunications Policy, 2004, vol.28, no. 7, pp. 559-578.

[51] Tran, A. V., Chae, C.-J., Tucker, R. S. "Ethernet PON or WDM PON: A Comparison of Cost and Reliability". TENCON 2005. IEEE Region 10 Conference, 2005.

[52] Hoikkanen, A. "A Techno-Economic Analysis of 3G Long-Term Evolution for Broadband Access". Telecommunication Techno-Economics, 2007. CTTE 2007 6th Conference. IEEE, 2007.

[53] Pereira, J. pp. R., Pires, J. A. "Broadband Access Technologies Evaluation Tool (BATET)". Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2007, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 288-294.

[54] Chatzi, S., et al. "A Quantitative Techno-Economic Comparison of Current and Next Generation Metro/Access Converged Optical Networks". 36th European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2010.

[55] Tomkos, I. "Techno-Economic Evaluation of NGA Architectures: How Much Does it Cost to Deploy FTTx per Household Passed?". Transparent Optical Networks, 2011, 13th International Conference. IEEE, 2011.

[56] Casier, K., "Techno-Economic Evaluation of a Next Generation Access Network Development in a Competitive Setting". PhD Thesis. Ghent University, Belgium, 2009.

[57] Havic, Z., Mikac, B. "Economic Model for FTTH Access Network Design". Telecommunication, Media and Internet Techno-Economics (CTTE), 2011, 10th Conference. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1-5.

[58] Katsigiannis, M. et al. "Quantitative Modeling of Public Local Area Access Value Network Configurations". Telecommunication, Media and Internet Techno-Economics (CTTE), 10th Conference. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1-9.

[59] Machuca, C. M., et al. "OASE: Process Modeling and First Version of TCO Evaluation Tool. D5.2". 2011. http://www.ict-oase.eu/public/files/OASE_D5_2_WP5_IBBT_301211_V3_0.pdf.

[60] Battistella, C., et al. "Methodology of Business Ecosystems Network Analysis: A Case Study in Telecom Italia Future Centre". Tecnological Forecasting and Social Change, 2003, Vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 1194-1210.

[61] Katsigiannis, M., et al. "Techno-Economic Modeling of Value Network Configurations for Public Wireless Local Area Access". NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking, 2013, vol. 14, no. 1-2, pp. 27-46.

[62] Romero, R. R., Zhao, R., Machuca C. M. "Advanced Dynamic Migration Planning Toward FTTH". Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2014, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 77-83.

[63] Zukowski, C., Payne, D. B., Ruffini, M. "Modelling Accurate Planning of PON Networks to Reduce Initial Investment in Rural Areas". Optical Network Design and Modeling, 2014 International Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 138-143.

[64] Van der Wee, M., et al. "Evaluation of the Techno-Economic Viability of Point-to-Point Dark Fiber Access Infrastructure in Europe". Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, IEE/OSA, 2014, vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 238-249.

[65] López Bonilla, M., Mosching, E., Rudge, F. "Techno-Economical Comparison Between GPON and EPON Networks". Innovations for Digital Inclusions (K-IDI) 2009. ITU-T Kaleidoscope. IEEE, 2009.

[66] Ricciardi, S. "GPON and EP2P: A Techno-Economic Study". Networks and Optical Communications (NOC), 2012 17th European Conference. IEEE, 2012.

[67] Bozinović, Z., Dizdarević, H., Dizdarević, S. "Optimal Techno-Economic Selection of the Optical Access Network Topologies". MIPRO, 2012 Proceedings of the 35th International Convention. IEEE, 2012, pp. 562-567.

[68] Vidmar, L., Peternel, B., Kos, A. "Broadband Access Network Investment Optimization in Rural Areas". MELECON 2010, 15th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference. IEEE, 2010, pp. 482-486.

[69] Krizanovic, V., Grgic, K., Zagar, D. "Analyses and Comparisons of Fixed Access Technologies for Rural Broadband Implementation". Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), 2010 32th International Conference. IEEE, 2010, pp. 483-488.

[70] Krizanovic, V., Zagar, D., Grgic, K. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Wireline and Wireless Broadband Access Networks Deployment in Croatian Rural Areas". Telecommunications (conTEL), 2011 11th International Conference. IEEE, 2011, pp. 265-272.

[71] Drago, Z., Visnja, K., Kresimir, G. "Business Case Assessment of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access Networks Deployments". 20th

International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (softCOM 2012). IEEE, 2012, pp. 1-5.

[72] Krizanović, V., Zagar, D., Martinović, G. "Mobile Broadband Access Networks Planning and Evaluation Using Techno-Economic Criteria". ITI 2012, 34th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces. IEEE, 2012, pp. 281-286.

[73] Kang, D. H., Sung, K. W., Zander, J. "High Capacity Indoor and Hotspot Wireless System in Shared Spectrum: A Techno-Economic Analysis". Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2013, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 102-109.

[74] Böcker, G. J., et al. "A Techno-Economic Comparison of the RACE 2024 BAF and other Broadband Access System". Optical/Hybrid Access Networks, 1993, 5th Conference. IEEE, 1993.

[75] Verbrugge, S. et al. "Methodology and Input Availability Parameters for Calculating OpEx and CapEx Costs for Realistic Network Scenarios". Journal of Optical Networking, 2006, vol.5, no. 6, pp. 509-520.

[76] Francis, J. C. "Techno-Eonomic Analysis of the Open Broadband Access Network Wholesale Business Case". Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit, 2007 16th IST. IEEE, 2007.

[77] "The ICT-DISCUS Project 2013". ICT-DISCUS. Project Website: http://www.discus-fp7.eu

[78] Ovando, C. et al. “LTE techno-economic assessment: The case of rural areas in Spain”. Telecommunication Policy Vol. 39, No. 3-4, pp. 269-283, 2015.

[79] Ashutosh, J., Debashis, S. “Techno-economic assessment of the potential for LTE based 4G mobile services in rural India”, IEEE ANTS, 2015.

[80] Shahid, A., Mas Machuca, C. “Dimensioning and Assessment of Protected Converged Optical Access Networks”. IEEE Communications Magazine Vol. 55, No. 8, 2017.

[81] Oughton, E.J. et al. “An Open-Source Techno-Economic Assessment Framework for 5G Deployment”, IEEE Access Vol. 7, 2019.

[82] Bendicho, C. “Model for Techno-Economic Assessment of Access Network Technologies”, Doctoral Dissertation, Bilbao School of Engineering, 2016.

TABLE III. OVERALL RATING AND RANKING OF LITERATURE DEPENDING ON THE DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A THEORETICAL UNIVERSAL, GENERALIZABLE, SCALABLE AND FLEXIBLE TECHNO-ECONOMIC MODEL (COMPLIANCE NORMALIZED BY FEATURE IN 100 BASIS)..

Mul

tiacc

ess

Univ

ersa

lity

Univ

ersa

lity

in

com

bina

tion

of a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es

Univ

ersa

lity

in u

ser

orie

ntat

ion

Univ

ersa

lity

in

inco

rpor

atin

g "m

icro

" an

d "m

acro

" ap

proa

ches

Orie

ntat

ion

to U

ser o

f th

e M

odel

Re

quire

men

ts

Geo

grap

hic

univ

ersa

lity

Tech

nica

l and

Ec

onom

ic U

nive

rsal

ity

Flex

ibili

ty a

nd

Exte

nsib

ility

Tech

nica

l and

Ec

onom

ic

Com

para

bilit

y

Pred

ictiv

e Ab

ility

Abi

lity

to in

tegr

ate

with

ot

her m

odel

s

ASSE

SSM

ENT

%FU

LFIL

LMEN

T

Maximum possible score 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1100 100% Shahid & Machuca [80] (2017) 100 25 67 50 100 100 100 0 75 67 0 684 62% Pereira & Ferreira [3] (2009) 100 25 67 50 50 100 75 0 50 100 0 617 56% Pereira [5] (2007) 100 0 67 50 50 100 75 0 50 100 0 592 54% Olsen et al. ECOSYS [24] (2006) 67 25 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 551 50% Monath et al. [21]. MUSE (2005) 67 25 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 551 50% Oughton et al. ]81] (2019) 34 0 34 50 0 100 100 0 75 100 50 543 49% Feijoo et al. [6]. RURAL (2011) 67 25 34 50 50 100 50 0 50 100 0 526 48% Vergara et al. [32]. Model COSTA (2010) 67 25 67 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 509 46% Olsen et al. [2]. TITAN (1996) 34 50 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 468 43% Jankovich et al. [17]. EURESCOM (2000) 67 25 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 476 43% Smura [20]. WiMAX only. TONIC & ECOSYS (2005) 34 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 493 45% Zagar et al. [31] (rural broadband in Croatia) (2010) 67 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 0 476 43% Pecur [4] FIWI (2013) 100 25 0 50 0 100 75 0 50 67 0 467 42% Martin et al. [36]. Only HFC (2011) 34 0 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 418 38% Van der Wee et al. [38]. FTTH only. OASE (2012) 34 0 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 418 38% Van der Merwe et al. [26]. FTTH only (2009) 34 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 67 0 410 37%

TABLE IV. OVERALL RATING OF AUTHOR´S MODEL AND RANKING OF LITERATURE DEPENDING ON THE DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A THEORETICAL UNIVERSAL, GENERALIZABLE, SCALABLE AND FLEXIBLE TECHNO-ECONOMIC MODEL (COMPLIANCE NORMALIZED BY FEATURE IN 100 BASIS)..

Mul

tiacc

ess

Univ

ersa

lity

Univ

ersa

lity

in

com

bina

tion

of a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es

Univ

ersa

lity

in u

ser

orie

ntat

ion

Univ

ersa

lity

in

inco

rpor

atin

g "m

icro

" an

d "m

acro

" ap

proa

ches

Orie

ntat

ion

to U

ser o

f th

e M

odel

Re

quire

men

ts

Geo

grap

hic

univ

ersa

lity

Tech

nica

l and

Ec

onom

ic U

nive

rsal

ity

Flex

ibili

ty a

nd

Exte

nsib

ility

Tech

nica

l and

Ec

onom

ic

Com

para

bilit

y

Pred

ictiv

e Ab

ility

Abi

lity

to in

tegr

ate

with

ot

her m

odel

s

ASSE

SSM

ENT

%FU

LFIL

LMEN

T

Maximum possible score 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1100 100% Author´s UTEM model – Bendicho (2016) 100 100 84 100 100 100 100 50 75 100 100 1009 92% Shahid & Machuca [80] (2017) 100 25 67 50 100 100 100 0 75 67 0 684 62% Pereira & Ferreira [3] (2009) 100 25 67 50 50 100 75 0 50 100 0 617 56% Pereira [5] (2007) 100 0 67 50 50 100 75 0 50 100 0 592 54% Olsen et al. ECOSYS [24] (2006) 67 25 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 551 50% Monath et al. [21]. MUSE (2005) 67 25 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 551 50% Oughton et al. ]81] (2019) 34 0 34 50 0 100 100 0 75 100 50 543 49% Feijoo et al. [6]. RURAL (2011) 67 25 34 50 50 100 50 0 50 100 0 526 48% Vergara et al. [32]. Model COSTA (2010) 67 25 67 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 509 46% Olsen et al. [2]. TITAN (1996) 34 50 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 468 43% Jankovich et al. [17]. EURESCOM (2000) 67 25 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 476 43% Smura [20]. WiMAX only. TONIC & ECOSYS (2005) 34 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 50 493 45% Zagar et al. [31] (rural broadband in Croatia) (2010) 67 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 100 0 476 43% Pecur [4] FIWI (2013) 100 25 0 50 0 100 75 0 50 67 0 467 42% Martin et al. [36]. Only HFC (2011) 34 0 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 418 38% Van der Wee et al. [38]. FTTH only. OASE (2012) 34 0 34 50 0 100 50 0 50 100 0 418 38% Van der Merwe et al. [26]. FTTH only (2009) 34 0 34 50 0 100 75 0 50 67 0 410 37%