'Tough choices' for UK broadband

[LaineY]

Hey guys.. Came accross this and just thought you all might want to have a wee read.
It is not specific to Virgin Media.. But Virgin Media are half the way there :P

The cost of taking fibre-based broadband to every UK home could top £28.8bn, says a report.

Compiled by the government's broadband advisory group, the report details the cost of the different ways to wire the UK for next generation broadband.

Another option, to take the fibres to street-level boxes, would only cost £5.1bn, it said.

Big differences in the cost of updating urban and rural net access will pose difficult choices, says the report.

[Moderator Edit]

(Atleast its being discussed)

This Artical is on the BBC Website. Please Check it out
Direct Link for it is :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7600834.stm
Thanks BBC


[Moderator Edit (Rob M): Please don't repost copyrighted works, even with a copyright notice. Simply provide a small quote and then link to the main article.]

[peanut]

A link to the BBC site would have done. ( Linky)

Whole copy/paste jobbies aren't allowed here as far as I know.

Edit.

Posted same time as your edit.

[Ignitionnet]

Not sure how these choices are tough to be honest. If the entire country isn't economical to fibre up at this time do what makes sense and has a business case for FTTH, do what has a business case for FTTC, the rest do as and when it makes sense.

It's a bummer but nowhere in the world has universal fibre coverage and those countries that do have generous fibre coverage have government cash / incentives behind them.

I do wonder why areas without mains gas / sewage are not commented on as lacking these while it's a 'tough choice' to provide fibre or not. Already the whole competition / open access factor has meant some of BT's prices for wholesale access are artificially high and they have spent years coming up with plans for wholesale fibre access to meet the approval of Ofcom and other parties.

Some decisions do indeed have to be made. Do we want fibre and healthy wholesale based competition or do we still want to be connected to exchange based copper to preserve some perceived parity in the market, keep exchange based LLU alive and 'enhance consumer choice'. One sticking point at least was that ISPs wanted to be able to unbundle strands of fibre on BT's network. BT now have wholesale products prepared and approved for trial for Ebbsfleet, so we'll see where they go from there. It's not pleasant for those who have made big investment in LLU however I imagine they were always expecting this just a question of when.

Unless someone else can step up to the plate BT carry a lot of power now, the carrot being FTTP/C and them being the only company with the financial muscle and will to do it... under the right regulatory environment of course.

The BSG estimates that getting fibre to the cabinets near the first 58% of households could cost about £1.9bn.

BT's spend on 21CN alone, their IP/VoIP core upgrade is £2 billion / year and rising out of an annual CapEx budget of £3bn.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

A link to the BBC site would have done. ( Linky)

Whole copy/paste jobbies aren't allowed here as far as I know.

What he said ^^

I've edited your post, please don't repost copyrighted works in their entirety.

Thanks.

[tvtimes]

At least half the country is fibred up, let's hope another company takes it upon themselves to cable up the rest.

[LaineY]

Sorry rob mate.. i should have probably read the forums terms and cons over again.. and funnily enough that is one of the things that was always clear in my head lol DONT POST LINKS.

my mistake.. apologies and thanks for editing.. i just always thought that if u put where you got the Info from it was a bonus for BBC.. but i forget it doesnt work that way anymore lol..

sorry

[Raistlin]

No worries It's all good

[bw41101]

Looking at the statement "Another option, to take the fibres to street-level boxes", isn't that basically what VM are doing at the moment? I.e. fibre to the head and then distibuted in copper and coax to the consumer.

With regard to covering the whole country this would (indeed) be an expensive exercise if it meant digging up the streets to lay the cables. However (as the fibe optic cables are relativelly slim and carry only light - not power) what's to stop anyone from routing same down the middle of a gas, water or sewer main? Surely if the existing infrastructure is already present why not use it?

All that would be required is co-operation between the various services, to allow the cables to be routed within the existing underground systems, which (in itself) would provide additional benefits for those services. For example, a fibre optic link could be run unto every household to interface with the consumers utility equipment to automatically monitor the gas and electricty usage.

Other option would be the use of cables on poles (like telephone connections) to each household, even then (again) the telephone connection infrastructure already exists, so it's not as if majour works would be involved.

Oh sorry, must be careful in what I say - don't wish to be accused of logical thought. Then again, we are famous (in this country) for continuously reinventing the wheel.

Si thee

You are talking about RASWA (Road and Street Works Act) - this has been in place since 1991, and nobody seems to use it.

[spiderplant]

Does anyone know whether the reported 1Gbps limit for a FTTH service has any basis in reality or is it just journo-fiction?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Does anyone know whether the reported 1Gbps limit for a FTTH service has any basis in reality or is it just journo-fiction?

Fiction. Variety of different technologies that can deliver a variety of bandwidths.

[Chrysalis]

These reports are silly, there is people in villages who think they should be getting the same type of services as people in highly populated areas, it isnt viable and various services are non existant or reduced in such areas. In fact villagers in the uk are lucky as in most countries its dialup only.

What the report does highlight tho (assuming its accurate) is that providing broadband backhaul to low populated areas (non cable/llu areas) cost around 3 times as much as it does for main areas for 20% of the population, so effectively 15 times the cost per enabled house. It goes some way into explaining why all broadband sold using the BT wholesale ipstream infrastructure is very expensive and why LLU is considerably cheaper.