Is it time for a publicallly owned internet provider?

[Stuart]

This article, along with the high speeds in Sweden (Stockholm specifically) got me thinking.

Their solution came about because they identified that (as happens here) roads were being dug up for one utility, then dug up again a while later for another utility. They came up with the idea of ensuring that various Utilities co-ordinated their maintenance, so that say, if the Electricity company needed to replace a main, then they would do that, and before filling in the hole, they would let the Water company come and do some maintenance.

Then, someone suggested that while all these roads were being dug up anyway, why not gradually build a hi-speed cable network?

Of course, ISPs objected and said it would force prices up. Had it been done in this country, they would probably be right.

However, the city of Stockholm had a solution. They mandated that the utility set up to run the cable network would provide services at cost.

However, that cost was kept down by the fact that they were given free access to any roadworks so they could lay cable (thus passing on the bulk of the cost of installation to other Utilities).

I wonder if such a system would be better than our current system in parts of this country? After all, in a commerical ISP, the primary concern is to make money. One of the ways they do this is to cut costs. In the case of BT and Virgin, one major cost is the installation and maintenance of the network. So, therefore, both companies have cut the maintenance and upgrades back to the minimum they can do, and still remain competitive.

It certainly seems to have worked in Stockholm..

[prawncocktail]

hmm a very interesting idea but knowing this country, i would imagine yes your broadband may be cheaper but your gas/electricity/water would shoot up in price as the utilities are having "extra" cost, whether there actually is any extra cost (they were doing it anyway) is a point but we do live in rip off britain

[awibble]

The way it should work, there should be no more cost, as they only have to provide access which is pretty easy, instead of sending them to fill in the hole on wednesday, send them thursday or friday...

I have heard in some place that theyare running the cable through the sewage system, so they only need to dig little hole to put the boxes in the ground and reseale the sewear... Sounds nasty for whoever has to do it, but lets face it, all the cables lead to the same place....

..oo00(( Wonder if they could just flush the end of the cable down the toilet and catch it when it gets to the treatment plant))00oo..

[Gareth]

Yep, Bournemouth Council are doing this with the sewerage pipes... although they're only really using it for backup purposes in case their existing BT lines go down.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1...9286165,00.htm

Elfed Thomas, managing director for H2O Networks, claimed it is 80 percent faster to lay cables in the sewers and said it offers organisations a fixed-term cost rather than bandwidth tariffs, which means no further charges are incurred when extra capacity is needed.

Sounds good to me.

[Stuart]

That's another advantage. There are hundreds, if not thousands of miles of sewers in any town. It should be a lot cheaper to lay cable in those than it would to dig the road, yet our companies seem intent on not co-operating with each other.

Hell, Thames Water would probably charge rent for the space in the sewers.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

They came up with the idea of ensuring that various Utilities co-ordinated their maintenance, so that say, if the Electricity company needed to replace a main, then they would do that, and before filling in the hole, they would let the Water company come and do some maintenance.

Sounds like that Heineken advert!



Good idea, anyway.

[awibble]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

That's another advantage. There are hundreds, if not thousands of miles of sewers in any town. It should be a lot cheaper to lay cable in those than it would to dig the road, yet our companies seem intent on not co-operating with each other.

Hell, Thames Water would probably charge rent for the space in the sewers.

Supprised Thames Water dont, money grabbing grrrr's lol

It makes perfect sense to me, all they have to do is build a headend where the cables come out and hey presto, instant coverage... the Hardest part would be getting it from the sewars into the house, not sure how they would do that, but it wouldnt be hard to figure out...

If you where allowed to put stuff down the sewars, you could create your own network like that, as 90% of buildings how sewards i assume

Originally Posted by Matt D

Sounds like that Heineken advert!



Good idea, anyway.

Does a bit... almost carlsbergish as well

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

This article, along with the high speeds in Sweden (Stockholm specifically) got me thinking.

Their solution came about because they identified that (as happens here) roads were being dug up for one utility, then dug up again a while later for another utility. They came up with the idea of ensuring that various Utilities co-ordinated their maintenance, so that say, if the Electricity company needed to replace a main, then they would do that, and before filling in the hole, they would let the Water company come and do some maintenance.

Then, someone suggested that while all these roads were being dug up anyway, why not gradually build a hi-speed cable network?

Of course, ISPs objected and said it would force prices up. Had it been done in this country, they would probably be right.

However, the city of Stockholm had a solution. They mandated that the utility set up to run the cable network would provide services at cost.

However, that cost was kept down by the fact that they were given free access to any roadworks so they could lay cable (thus passing on the bulk of the cost of installation to other Utilities).

I wonder if such a system would be better than our current system in parts of this country? After all, in a commerical ISP, the primary concern is to make money. One of the ways they do this is to cut costs. In the case of BT and Virgin, one major cost is the installation and maintenance of the network. So, therefore, both companies have cut the maintenance and upgrades back to the minimum they can do, and still remain competitive.

It certainly seems to have worked in Stockholm..

Not sure about publicly owned ISP but I think we need a publicly owned backbone, new local loop so consumers have access to a fibre network.

You are bang on with your diagnosis of VM and BT.

VM chose to buy the use of ADSL of a major competitor in favour of expanding their cable network for profit, and BT are happy to continue to use copper as long as its viable.

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

That's another advantage. There are hundreds, if not thousands of miles of sewers in any town. It should be a lot cheaper to lay cable in those than it would to dig the road, yet our companies seem intent on not co-operating with each other.

Hell, Thames Water would probably charge rent for the space in the sewers.

Cant really imagine having your router connected to a cable that goes down the loo. I think the speeds would be crap

[DocDutch]

I do agree that all the companies should be invited when say company A needs to dig a hole in the road, but like it has been said already that wont work in the uk even if Company A and Company B use the same contractors :O

I know that in Holland say they have to resurface a road then all the utility companies are invited to redo their cables, pipes etc.

it shares the cost so better for all.

What I have seen often enough in London is roads being dug up 4x in the space of a month for your powergen, then b/g, then Thames Water then BT and then Virgin Media.... why not have it done all in 1 time at least that saves the poor buggers that have to drive over that road a whole lot of hassle.

[Chrysalis]

Its common sense and its simple thats why we dont do it.

I remember suggesting using sewage pipes for a fiber rollout on adslguide but was told its unviable yet we now have someone doing it.

[awibble]

http://www.google.com/tisp/ - Great minds think alike eh :P

(Yes i know it was or 1st April)