plans, but this is quite unlikely. More likely are moves by the most ICT-aggressive new entrants to the EU, the Baltic or Balkan states such as Lithuania or Slovenia. France and Germany are more likely to consider migration a decade later, as current infrastructure is good and price competition can be held off until current investments have been amortised. The United States and Japan have fairly modern infrastructures but the United States's has piecemeal quality and bandwidth. However vested interests in both countries are large and powerful, so the change to a new infrastructure could only come from moves by the media and cable companies and the ISPs. One possible illustration of the migration phase of each region is shown below, as a potential example. Figure 2.20. Conversion to all IP infrastructure of fibre and radio access India and South Asia China/S. Korea Europe (variation by country) Brazil and RoW Japan 5. Implications for business models This section examines implications (financial in particular) for public or private construction of infrastructures, risk sharing, and public/private partnerships. In particular we look at the viability and sustainability of current business models in fixed line and mobile telephony/broadband of new infrastructure on current business models. INFRASTRUCTURE TO 2030: TELECOM, LAND TRANSPORT, WATER AND ELECTRICITY - ISBN 92-64-02398-4 © OECD 2006 2. TELECOMS INFRASTRUCTURE TO 2030 Traditional fixed line operator models Traditionally, business models in the telecommunications industry have been founded on the premise that it is a highly regulated industry with controlled entry. Historically, the regulated but protected monopoly position has produced the powerful incumbent operator in each country, especially where the regulator was effectively the national operator. This has been justified as necessary for safe investment of historically relatively large sums of public funding in infrastructure (up to the 1960s, some 2% of GDP), whose deployment may not have been seen as s