September 14, 2009 11:01 AM
How much will a fibre rollout actually cost?
by Tom Jowitt
Gartner has just published a new report which predicts a bandwidth divide in the next three to five years between urban and rural areas, with those living in the countryside being left behind in the digital slow lane.
This bandwidth divide between town and countryside is exactly what I predicted back in October 2007, when BT first mooted the idea of investing in either fibre to the node (FTTN), or fibre to the home (FTTH).
The Gartner report (Emerging Technology Analysis: Ultra-High-Speed Residential Broadband Internet, Global Consumer Services) does highlight an interesting point though.
“Governments in countries that lag behind in the deployment of ultra broadband will come under increasing pressure to use public funds to upgrade broadband infrastructure to avoid falling behind,” it says.
Certainly in the UK over the past few years, government ministers have been repeatedly calling for more investment in high speed ADSL, without actually putting up any funds from the public purse to do so. Its answer was the 'broadband tax', but not for the first time, the government's numbers don't add up.
The problem is that BT, the owner of most of the UK's telecoms infrastructure, is a commercial entity. It has shareholders, and it needs to justify the economic arguments in rolling out fibre. The simple fact is that fibre rollouts in cities and towns, is easier to justify economically than in rural areas.
Critics will say that ISPs need to invest in the infrastructure in order to win customers and provide a decent level of service. Fair enough, but still, what level of population does it take in order to make it economically viable to rollout fibre, say to a particular village or less populated region?
There seems to be a remarkable lack of clarity from all involved (BT, the government, Ofcom etc) about the actual cost of putting fibre in the ground in rural areas. BT did not get back to me when I asked, incidentially.
If these institutions could be a bit more forthcoming about the actual costs involved, say to run a fibre connection from a local telephone exchange to a particular village, then I imagine it could help motivate so called private funding schemes (parish or local councils, concerned citizens or even companies) into investing in a local fibre rollout for the good of their local community and themselves.
“Built it and they will come,” a line from a film once said. But unless someone actually tells us how much it will actually cost to 'build it', then both Gartner's and mine's prediction of a two tier network in the UK will remain the only likely outcome.
Follow Tom Jowitt on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TJowitt
This bandwidth divide between town and countryside is exactly what I predicted back in October 2007, when BT first mooted the idea of investing in either fibre to the node (FTTN), or fibre to the home (FTTH).
The Gartner report (Emerging Technology Analysis: Ultra-High-Speed Residential Broadband Internet, Global Consumer Services) does highlight an interesting point though.
“Governments in countries that lag behind in the deployment of ultra broadband will come under increasing pressure to use public funds to upgrade broadband infrastructure to avoid falling behind,” it says.
Certainly in the UK over the past few years, government ministers have been repeatedly calling for more investment in high speed ADSL, without actually putting up any funds from the public purse to do so. Its answer was the 'broadband tax', but not for the first time, the government's numbers don't add up.
The problem is that BT, the owner of most of the UK's telecoms infrastructure, is a commercial entity. It has shareholders, and it needs to justify the economic arguments in rolling out fibre. The simple fact is that fibre rollouts in cities and towns, is easier to justify economically than in rural areas.
Critics will say that ISPs need to invest in the infrastructure in order to win customers and provide a decent level of service. Fair enough, but still, what level of population does it take in order to make it economically viable to rollout fibre, say to a particular village or less populated region?
There seems to be a remarkable lack of clarity from all involved (BT, the government, Ofcom etc) about the actual cost of putting fibre in the ground in rural areas. BT did not get back to me when I asked, incidentially.
If these institutions could be a bit more forthcoming about the actual costs involved, say to run a fibre connection from a local telephone exchange to a particular village, then I imagine it could help motivate so called private funding schemes (parish or local councils, concerned citizens or even companies) into investing in a local fibre rollout for the good of their local community and themselves.
“Built it and they will come,” a line from a film once said. But unless someone actually tells us how much it will actually cost to 'build it', then both Gartner's and mine's prediction of a two tier network in the UK will remain the only likely outcome.
Follow Tom Jowitt on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TJowitt
Email
Print
Comment
Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog
You must be logged in to post a comment.