This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Telecommunications Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page should be merged with Open Access Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Access_Network Stevesong (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think open access network has probably become more common than open communications --Opticalgirl (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the following phrase mean, exactly: "Access plans are to deregulate oligarchy of telecom operators in a bid to..."

Beyond the grammatical error ("...to deregulate oligarchy of..."), I am suspicious of the term "deregulate" being used in the same sentence as "oligarchy" because it looks like it could be an attempt to describe private parties as elements of government. Companies do not regulate - governments do. In the subject area of deregulation, one discusses removing government regulation of economic activity. This is quite different from discussing disagreement with a company's policies, in that a company cannot enforce its will through the powers of the state. If the intent is to refer to undue influence in governmental affairs by companies that aggressively lobby politicians in return for favorable treatment at the expense of other businesses and citizens, that is fine - but say it (if that is what is meant). Don't couch the argument in vague terms that can be interpreted different ways.

Make it clear and unambiguous.Blcklbl (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this article was about a concept relating to free and open access to communications infrastructure and platforms. Then a expansion was made about the interpersonal communication style of the same name, creating a second topic within the same article.

Ordinarily, we'd fork off the later addition to a new page, but in this case, the prior version was unreferenced, and none of the external links use the term open communication, in favor of open access. And even that term has not endured the 16 years since this article was created. The relevant topics that have borne out their notability are Open access network and Net neutrality. Given this, I think it's time to refactor this article to cover its more common meaning (the communication style). Ibadibam (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]