PDA

View Full Version : If carlsberg did broadband...



NickInTheNorth
22-Aug-11, 10:22
This is how it should be done, and if this bunch can do it for 5000 odd rural properties at a cost of £1100 per property then why can't BT do it for everyone for an awful lot less.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4767-b4rn-to-deploy-1gbps-fibre-network-to-rural-parishes-in-lancashire.html

In short, the plan is a fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) network which will offer symmetric Gigabit speeds for £30 a month with a £150 connection fee

RecQuery
22-Aug-11, 11:46
We do have a broadband plan in this area and it has been funded, my concern is that the money will be wasted on consultants and meetings and that we'll end up with ADSL2+ in a few places and that'll be it, or that a disproportionate amount of the money will be spent in the Inverness and Orkney areas.

weezer 316
22-Aug-11, 12:25
Well I would guess, or rather speculate, that the reason BT cant do it for less is quite simply because its costs are far higher! It will cost god knows how much to hire labour to dig, then an engineer who could be fixing things elsewhere and therefore keeping an existing revenue stream open, is now laying a cable. Then the cost of things like risk assesments etc. Im sure anyone thats built a house would sympathise, the cost of getting services wired up is enormous!

Geo
23-Aug-11, 01:36
It's yet to be seen if they can do it. Can they lay cable at £5/m? Also what will the speed be per customer?

RecQuery
23-Aug-11, 10:15
I found this (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4767-b4rn-to-deploy-1gbps-fibre-network-to-rural-parishes-in-lancashire.html) (B4RN to deploy 1Gbps fibre network to rural parishes in Lancashire) the other day about a similar initiative in Lancashire doing FTTP which looks like the way to go. It probably won't happen though. Apparently the ADSL2+ equipment is sitting in the Exchanges in both Wick and Thurso (it's old stuff from Exchanges that have had FTTC/FTTP upgrades). They're going to start the upgrades on January 2012 it shouldn't take long to complete but they've given themselves a decent safety margin.

It's possible BT won't win the contract up here. There are others who could bid for it when it happens. It doesn't help that Scotland got a meager share of the Broadband fund money but that's a different argument.

NickInTheNorth
23-Aug-11, 10:28
Aye, you probably found it in the OP :)

The kit has been sat in the exchanges for over 2 months already, but as you say BT like to have a decent margin :)

NickInTheNorth
23-Aug-11, 10:39
It's yet to be seen if they can do it. Can they lay cable at £5/m? Also what will the speed be per customer?

The speed will be 1gb upstream and down per customer, with a dedicated fibre link from their hub to Telecity in Manchester.

The business plan is a very interesting read (https://sites.google.com/site/b4rnftthbroadbandruralnorth/)

Provision to upgrade to 10gb and 100gb is inbuilt, provision to provide VoIP and bin the landline is built in. The only thing left out is corporate monopoly and corporate greed :)

And yes Geo it is yet to be seen if they can do it, but I say well done to them for trying to provide a proper network for rural properties. It's more than anyone else has proposed so far anywhere else from what I have seen.

RecQuery
23-Aug-11, 10:47
This is a side note and not related to the UK, but telecomms companies in the US have succeeded in getting states, local councils, and town halls to ban community fibre projects. They were prompted after some places put together cheaper and technically superior projects after being ignored by the telecomms monopolies.

weezer 316
23-Aug-11, 11:08
Im not sure the term ignored is correct one, more lived in unviable areas. A company cant justify a 100k + investment in a place with 100 premises to seel BB too. The economies of scale dictate that its only marginally mroe expensive to upgrade an exchange with 10 000 premises attached than 100. The result is BB not spots. its not discrimination, rather ignorance from the local as to how much it actually costs.

RecQuery
23-Aug-11, 11:20
Im not sure the term ignored is correct one, more lived in unviable areas. A company cant justify a 100k + investment in a place with 100 premises to seel BB too. The economies of scale dictate that its only marginally mroe expensive to upgrade an exchange with 10 000 premises attached than 100. The result is BB not spots. its not discrimination, rather ignorance from the local as to how much it actually costs.

Okay granted and I would understand and accept all of that, but then why try ban other projects and lobby legislatures to stop people doing it locally or in the case of BT stopping other people getting access to cabling ducts or Exchanges. Also a lot of the cost estimates and craps and attempts at profiteering.

Oh another concern I have with this broadband money is that they'll waste it on 3G upgrades.

Geo
23-Aug-11, 11:22
The business plan isn't displaying for some reason. Regarding the entire project I just don't see how they can do it. There are just so many things that have to go right for them. Will 70% of the population want it? If so it will be interesting to see if the community can pull together and do it. It would be quite an achievement.

RecQuery
23-Aug-11, 11:37
The business plan isn't displaying for some reason. Regarding the entire project I just don't see how they can do it. There are just so many things that have to go right for them. Will 70% of the population want it? If so it will be interesting to see if the community can pull together and do it. It would be quite an achievement.

It's hosted on Google Docs. There's another version here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/61638084/B4RN-Business-Plan-v4-1)

According to them:

"The advanced and world class network design and business modelling available to B4RN means that with only 50% support from the community, B4RN gets a green light to proceed. With 70% support and take-up, the projections and forecasts improve immeasurably. Currently around 65% of the population that B4RN will connect are using the Internet already so the latter is not an unachievable target"

At least they're doing something and trying something different. Also we actually have some public money to work around with.

Geo
23-Aug-11, 11:52
So they are already going into a market where less people use the internet then their ideal target number. Plus of the 65% who use the internet how many will actually jump ship? I'd love faster broadband but I couldn't afford to change to them even though the price for what it is is very competitive. I do like the idea though and hope they can pull it off. My current mobile phone network (giffgaff) has a bit of a community vibe, (customers providing support etc) but nothing close to this extent. All the best to them.

NickInTheNorth
23-Aug-11, 12:02
So they are already going into a market where less people use the internet then their ideal target number. Plus of the 65% who use the internet how many will actually jump ship? I'd love faster broadband but I couldn't afford to change to them even though the price for what it is is very competitive. I do like the idea though and hope they can pull it off. My current mobile phone network (giffgaff) has a bit of a community vibe, (customers providing support etc) but nothing close to this extent. All the best to them.

Don't forget that they can lose the landline if they want so the £30 gives broadband and voice - starts to look more reasonable that way. Also there's free to air TV available and video on demand. It is far more than just a fas broadband service that is on offer.

RecQuery
23-Aug-11, 12:30
Don't forget that they can lose the landline if they want so the £30 gives broadband and voice - starts to look more reasonable that way. Also there's free to air TV available and video on demand. It is far more than just a fas broadband service that is on offer.

I pay more than that now for my broadband (I value good service and the ability to download what I want with no shaping or limits) and when I was in an area that supported cable I paid £45 a month for phone, TV and broadband. I could probably go as high as £50 a month for just broadband, more if it covered phone/VoIP and possibly TV.

NickInTheNorth
23-Aug-11, 12:47
I pay more than that now for my broadband (I value good service and the ability to download what I want with no shaping or limits) and when I was in an area that supported cable I paid £45 a month for phone, TV and broadband. I could probably go as high as £50 a month for just broadband, more if it covered phone/VoIP and possibly TV.

I know what you mean, way back in the dawn of time, before ADSL I had a 256k leased line installed at home - I won't tell you what it cost 'cos it was a scary number then and it's a scary number now!

But it was more than £30 PER DAY!

weezer 316
23-Aug-11, 13:42
Okay granted and I would understand and accept all of that, but then why try ban other projects and lobby legislatures to stop people doing it locally or in the case of BT stopping other people getting access to cabling ducts or Exchanges. Also a lot of the cost estimates and craps and attempts at profiteering.

Oh another concern I have with this broadband money is that they'll waste it on 3G upgrades.

No agreed, anyone should be able to do it.

In the case of BT, openreach guarentees equality of access to the exchanges for all operators so its just a case of cost.

Why they didnt split BT in 1984 is beyond me. Wholesale shold have remained publically owned and spin the retail side off. One of the biggest corporate errors ever if you ask me.

Geo
23-Aug-11, 13:54
Don't forget that they can lose the landline if they want so the £30 gives broadband and voice - starts to look more reasonable that way. Also there's free to air TV available and video on demand. It is far more than just a fas broadband service that is on offer.

Very true, that does start to look appealing. So who's going to help me get somethng similar going up here? :)