Why not just copy the others

[JNeuhoff]

It is well known fact that in many places abroad FTTP has been introduced successfully for quite a while, see e.g Verizon's FIOS, Australia's upcoming NBN, or places like Sweden, South Korea etc have it, too.

My question: In all these places they obviously must have developed a successful business model and/or investment plan and the technology to do so. So why can't things be done here in this country? Are telecom companies really that incompetent here? Do companies like BT really need 6 month's show trials just to demonstrate a FTTC or FTTP on a small scale? Has the art of digging up roads and putting in fibre been forgotten? I remember only 8 years ago many cable companies actually used to have the skills to digg up the sidewalks and install fibre, at least up to the street cabinets.

These days companies like BT are so pathetic, even if we asked them for a quote for a simple 100 metres fibre optic leased line from our premise to the local exchange, they won't reply.

[Simon]

Can't answer that, or argue with it. 

[dujas]

I think you're being too idealist, BT aren't a charity, just like any publicly traded company they are only responsible to their shareholders and investors. It's up to the government to create incentives for companies to invest in "next generation" networks. Sadly it seems they are only just beginning to catch on, as the Digital Britain report highlights.

[bobleslie]

BT is a still a monopoly and acts like one.

It does everything it can to delay innovation unless it can monopolise such innovation and squeeze out potential competitors.

What surprises me is why people are constantly surprised at the slow rate of BB development in this country.

That's the result of having so much of the communications infrastructure under the control of one company.

[zappaDPJ]

This puts it all into perspective:

Top Countries by Download Speed

1  19.81 Mb/s Korea, Republic of
2  16.03 Mb/s Japan
3  15.34 Mb/s Aland Islands
4  12.72 Mb/s Lithuania
5  12.64 Mb/s Sweden
6  12.01 Mb/s Latvia
7  11.85 Mb/s Romania
8  11.17 Mb/s Bulgaria
9  10.34 Mb/s Netherlands
10  8.97 Mb/s Moldova, Republic of
11  8.32 Mb/s Slovakia
12  8.11 Mb/s Germany
13  8.07 Mb/s Hong Kong
14  8.01 Mb/s Russian Federation


40  4.96 Mb/s United Kingdom

Source: http://www.speedtest.net/global.php

As far as fibre is concerned I read somewhere very recently that BT's fibre trials have been remarkable in demonstrating the world's slowest fibre network. The blame for our Internet incompetence must surely be shared between BT and the government.

[Sebby]

Can't answer that, or argue with it. 

[Simon]

I bet the UK is one of the more expensive too, Zap.

[dujas]

The £21 billion that the government earned from the 3G licence auction back in 2001, would have easily paid for Fibre To The Home (FTTH) for the whole of the UK 

The Speedtest results are slightly misleading as it only shows the average speeds of those who can participate, I find it hard to believe the average speed across a country the size of Russia is 8Mbps.

I haven't seen a more up-to-date report from Ovum, but back in 2006 we were highly ranked out of the G7 countries for extensiveness of broadband coverage and competitiveness. Although I imagine we're slipping, as more and more countries realise the importance of moving towards a fibre based broadband solution.

[zappaDPJ]

I was a little bemused by the figure given for Russia as well because I believe they rely quite heavily on WiMAX technology which I wouldn't have though capable of delivering anything like that kind of bandwidth. Lithuania I can believe as they have a very modern state-funded network. I've never even heard of the Aland Islands, who are they?  Apparently they have a population of 27,210 and 'occupy a position of great strategic importance, as they command one of the entrances to the port of Stockholm, as well as the approaches to the Gulf of Bothnia, in addition to being situated near the Gulf of Finland' according to Wikipedia... you learn something new every day

I bet the UK is one of the more expensive too, Zap.

That raises an interesting point Simon. I'm surrounded by Fibre exchanges and know a couple of people that are connected or about to be connected. AFAIK they are both getting it FOC for the next 6 months. It appears there is no pricing structure implemented yet by BT. It's supposed to have been rolled out to a number of ISPs (15 or 16 I believe) but I've yet to find one that will acknowledge it so it's very hard to get any kind of information at the moment.

[Tacitus]

I think you're being too idealist, BT aren't a charity, just like any publicly traded company they are only responsible to their shareholders and investors. It's up to the government to create incentives for companies to invest in "next generation" networks. Sadly it seems they are only just beginning to catch on, as the Digital Britain report highlights.

This highlights the business model employed in the UK, which is basically invest as little as possible and extract as much as you can get away with.  Short term is tomorrow, long term next week; anything beyond that counts as 'blue skies' thinking.  Short term shareholder returns are the only metric by which anything is judged.

What we have is the worst of both worlds, a belief in a free market which may be good at delivering cans of beans but is useless at delivering things which are for the long term national good, whilst arguing that to correct this we should effectively tax people to make up for its deficiencies.  In other words Vince Cable's argument about privatising profit whilst nationalising the losses.

If we are going to subsidise BT- leaving aside whether we should or not - a more sensible option would be to tell BT they can have the money if they set up a 50/50 company with the government to bring about FTTX.  BT put in the local loop, the government puts up the money.  All profits to be jointly shared - as would be the risk - for (say) 25/30 years, after which the government's share will be sold off.  Under the Digital Britain report taxpayers put up the money with no guarantee of any return other than guarantee profits to the shareholders.  In order to prevent foreign takeovers, the government could hold a golden share giving them effective control.

Similar things have been done in the past with BP and, I think Cable and Wireless was at one time jointly owned.  It won't happen because BT can effectively blackmail the government by saying put up the money or we'll do nothing.

[Rik]

In many ways, the root of the problem is Ofcom, who seem intent on protecting BT at the expense of the consumer.

[dujas]

If we are going to subsidise BT- leaving aside whether we should or not - a more sensible option would be to tell BT they can have the money if they set up a 50/50 company with the government to bring about FTTX.  BT put in the local loop, the government puts up the money.  All profits to be jointly shared - as would be the risk - for (say) 25/30 years, after which the government's share will be sold off.

The Swedish model that started back in 1999 seems to make the most sense, whereby the state owns the core infrastructure and provides incentives to link up the last mile. In areas deemed not economically viable by the traditional telecom companies, local councils or even the individual can receive state aid to provide a solution. Sadly I think that opportunity has passed, the ideal time being when the GPO was privatised, the best option left really is a "telephone tax" to increase FTTC roll-out to a greater percentage of UK households.

[Rik]

If the money ends up where it should, of course.

[gizmo71]

ADSL connections in Russia are about as reliable as the electrics in an Italian car. Speed means nothing if the blasted thing won't stay connected for more than 2 minutes!

[glen]

In many ways, the root of the problem is Ofcom, who seem intent on protecting BT at the expense of the consumer.

Dare say ofcoms executives have a large amount of shares here and there.

[Rik]

You're as cynical as I am.

[glen]

When you do a bit of background work into  some of these exec's, it all falls into place.

[jimc]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/reports_plans/annrep0708/remuneration/

would be nice if they had to declare shares ?

[Rik]

That's an awful lot of money for an ineffective quango, isn't it.

[jimc]

Its the "Old boys club" Rick , we will never get rid of it I'm afraid
Regards
Jim C

[Rik]

How right you are, Jim. I must have missed out when they were handing out invitations.

[bobleslie]

ADSL connections in Russia are about as reliable as the electrics in an Italian car.

Better not tell BSM. 

[Rik]

Ladies prefer Italian cars...

[bobleslie]

Don't they just....Ferrari, and all that!

[Rik]

It's the Schumacher effect.