What do people on here think will happen with regards to the UK
getting FTTH and/or VDSL2? I see that millions of households have got
FTTH in Korea and Japan and people are switching from ADSL to FTTH,
and Verizon is spending $23bn to roll out FTTH to 18m homes. But from
reading this article it looks like BT seems to be pretty cold on the
idea of VDSL2 and FTTH:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06...eed_wars_over/

so if BT doesn't want to provide it, how is the UK going to get it,
and if we get it, when do you think we'll get it?

Thanks in advance.

steve41@totalise.co.uk wrote:

Comments like "$23bn to roll out FTTH to 18m homes" mean absolutely nothing
without context. Bear in mind that

a) that's not in the UK, it's probably the US, but which 18 million homes is
it? How can you possibly compare a fraction of the properties in the US
with the UK?
b) Verizon may well have had subsidy from the FCC to lay that fibre, and
just because it's been laid doesn't actually mean it's available to buy
service on.

LLU. Although I imagine "local" in this instance means the street cab, not
the exchange.

BT are perfectly happy to supply internet connections over fibre to your
home/premises. The lead times can be a bit of a chore, however. A full list
of what BT [and their resellers] supply can be found at www.sinet.bt.com

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
18:20:54 up 69 days, 20:23, 4 users, load average: 1.05, 0.49, 0.33
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

steve41@totalise.co.uk wrote:
In reality probably two chances in the next ten years: slim and none!

Peter Crosland

stev...@totalise.co.uk wrote:

well its a pretty free market so just as COLT fibred up London
businesses in the '80s they or any one of a zillion other companies or
local organisations could do the same.

Equally with "sub loop unbundling" anyone can provide VDSL from a
local street cabinet.

BT is uniquely disadvantaged by the regulatory regime as they would
have to provide equivalent access to other ISPs etc and not "do a
Verizon" and maintain a monopoly service "BT Broadband over fibre".
This probably pees on the economic chips.

A general question is "how much will people pay for it and what is the
% takeup going to be" - any thoughts ?

There's a BT Openreach FTTH greenfield project for Ebbsfleet or
somewhere similar planned in the next 2-3 years, you could move
there :-)

Openreach are also angling to do fibre on new builds so maybe 150,000
homes a year *could* have it if the developer plays ball. This should
start happening 2008 or 2009 IMO.


Phil

On 8 Jul, 10:31, PhilT <news...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay.



Do you think VDSL2 via street cabinets is more likely than FTTH?

Also, I've been reading about DOCSIS 3.0 for cable broadband, so do
you know if Virgin Media could roll out DOCSIS 3.0 and provide 100 Mbps
+ with its existing network or would it require a lot of work?



Right



True, but there's 24m households in the UK, so I don't plan on waiting
until they get around to doing mine! ;-)

<steve41@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183825151.100550.42180@g4g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com...
this seems to come up a lot when the "summary facts" get quoted, but the
different circumstances get ignored.

i font know the details, but i suspect that in Japan this is about fibre to
the building - since a big chunk of the population live in flats.

FWIW fibre is used a lot in Italy as well - 100 Mbps or GigE on fibre to a
switch which then serves multiple homes in a block.

you need to remember that if Verizon really does get around to spending all
that money, (and telcos are famous for not following thru) they would want a
good fraction back in charges per year.

So for 1 year payback, they would want to get an average of $1300 per served
location - and a big chunk of the house they go past wont take the service
for 1 reason or another.
the verizon site info doesnt sound anywhere near as wonderful in detail:
http://www22.verizon.com/content/ConsumerFios

they seem to be pushing it based on HD TV and bundled services rather than
just internet, but the internet doesnt look fantastic in detail.

http://www22.verizon.com/content/con...and+prices.htm
30 Mbps for $180 / month...... not exactly ground breaking pricing

AFAIR Virgin got slated for their 20 Mbps pricing of £38? / month (so
roughly $76).
and the moral is - if it sounds too good to be true, it often is.
Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

On 8 Jul, 16:26, "stephen" <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:

Japan and Korea respectively.



Sure.



Surely they would allow for a longer payback period than 1 year?



Is that just for the 30 Mbps Internet or does that include phone and
HDTV? If it's just for the Internet that is obviously very pricey.



It's a bit like when a new CPU comes out and they're priced
ridiculously highly, but 2 years later and they're cheap as chips...



So long as the speeds available at a reasonable price keep on going
steadily upwards I'll be happy. If the speed sticks at ADSL2+ levels
for years, then I won't be happy.

On 8 Jul, 15:06, stev...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
in some places yes. FTTH for new build or high density / easy to
connect locations.
VDSL from street cabs (or exchanges) for more distributed properties
or harder / more expensive to connect locations..

I don't "know" but in general cablecos can do a lot of upgrades
without having to rup up roads and I would expect they could go to
DOCSIS 3 with upgrades of hardware and fibre in the existing
architecture.

once FTTH exists you'll have the option to move to an equipped
property (if everything else fits in).

Phil

On 8 Jul, 17:29, stev...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
indeed, some complex discounted cash flow model seems more likely.

the US is a different market. In a given city you would expect to have
one cable co and one phone co and no TV aerials. The cable co give you
high speed internet and TV. Cable phone is rare in the USA. Vonage do
well over there by giving people a phone service over the cable
broadband so they can drop the landline. Landline might me $40/month
and Vonage half that.

Verizon supply phone lines including DSL and are losing customers or
have no growth potential. By providing "triple play" over fiber they
can get more customers and a "Verizon only" household becomes a
possibility whereas now the best they can hope for is phone and DSL.


£38/month would usually be $38/month as consumer prices (and the
minimum wage) translate at £ = $

Phil

On 07/07/2007 18:44, alexd wrote:

Also apparently when Verizon install FTTH they remove the old copper
which they were obliged to unbundle to other providers, thereby locking
the customer in.

steve41@totalise.co.uk wrote:

We'll get left behind and become a telecoms third world?

--
Abo

PhilT wrote:

But bear in mind that OpenReach will charge an SLU provider "excess
construction charges", so if fitting VDSL kit in a street cab requires an
extra cab, it could work out to be very costly. Does anyone know how many
lines fan out from an average [whatever that means] street cabinet?

Further reading:

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/prod...ds/subloop/Sub
Loop Unbundling Product Description Issue 3 4.pdf

Access Network Frequency Plan:

http://www.nicc.org.uk/nicc-public/P...02_2005_08.pdf

, which pretty much determines what sort of VDSL you could offer with SLU
right now. Subject to review in September '7.


Oh the irony! Not sure if what happens in Germany has any precedence on what
goes on here:

http://intlalliances.wordpress.com/2...o-competitors/

It's hard to say - I can only assume that service providers, even with the
availability of 50-100Mbit in the access network, will be offering
DSL-style contention ratios and transfer limits. Which would be poo, to be
honest.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
18:04:44 up 71 days, 20:07, 4 users, load average: 0.13, 0.15, 0.10
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

On 9 Jul, 19:53, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:

putting stuff in the street is never going to be cheap, but may be
cheaper than a fibre deployment. SLU has been done and it can be via a
tie cable to a remote DSLAM. The Openreach costs are substantial, £20k
to even start thinking about it, but as always the major cost will be
getting the data away from the DSLAM to the rest of the planet.

on what grounds do you assume this ? High contention only comes from
low retail prices, pay more get more. The perception of "free"
broadband is likely to be the biggest killer for FTTH as nobody will
want to pay £800 install and £50/month. If the takeup was very high it
might only be a tenner a month more than current products, but how
likely is a high % takeup ?

Phil

PhilT wrote:

I think you've answered your own question there. If people want a £20/month
service for free and are seemingly happy to get junk, they're not likely to
spend £50/month on something better.

Ironically enough, Virgin Media may be interested in SLU, if they can offset
the costs with quad-play revenues and send phone/TV/internet down a 50Mbit
line. They may find it cheaper to unbundle cabinets than to lay new coax.
And also, they have the backhaul to service the connections in many areas.

I'd spend £50 a month on a decent internet connection, but then I suspect my
opinion is less than representative.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
19:13:40 up 72 days, 21:16, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.16, 0.21
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0