n evolution pushing toward fiber access. In the United States, cable television providers are diffused almost in all the popu- lated areas. When the need of an ultra-broadband access emerged in 2004 and 2005, cable Telecommunication Networks television operators proposed themselves as competitors to traditional telecommunication carriers using cable modems to convey traditional telephony and web browsing on CATV cable infrastructures. Moreover, in 2005, the U.S. administration introduced an important exception to the liberalization act stating that unbundling cannot be forced on completely new infrastruc- tures, like fiber access networks [15]. This decision was based on the observation that unbundling relied on the fact that copper access was built with the help of the administration when incumbents were monopolists. Thus, they have a key business advantage that has to be compensated to preserve competition. If a carrier completely rebuilds his network with no administrative help and in a com- petition regime, it has no advantage and there is no need to force unbundling on the new infrastructure. The combination of these two facts moved the main RBOX (in particular Verizon, SBC, and Bellsouth) to start large projects for a new fiber-based access. These projects are still open today, even if revised in timing and dimension in pace with market evolution and with the change in the U.S. carriers scenario due to the merger between AT&T, Bellsouth, and SBC on one side and MCI and Verizon on the other side. Different from the United States, no derogation from the unbundling obligation has been approved in Europe, thereby causing a further delay in the evolution of the access network toward fiber-optic transmission. In Europe, however, traditional carriers have to face a new competitor-utility compa- nies. These companies are owners of some different, but pervasive infrastructure (e.g., power distribution or water ducts) and in many cases have a rich fiber network deployed using their own network. A certain number of su