Dear All,

There is no reason why a fibre link cannot be given to every resident in the UK. like copper links are.now. Each link using single mode firbe has a virtually unlimited bandwidth spectrum.

Physical links are reliable and can be used for emergency calls. Yes, the back haul at the moment will be only 10 Mb/s, this is due to the limited number of customers, but they will get 10 Mbit/s regardless how far away they are. Later as the network size and customers are increased, then so will the back haul speeds. It is a simple matter to increase the backhaul links and equipment . If you give each customer a 1000 Mbit/s link now then upgrading in the future is not a problem.

I would not have any objection if these customers were provided with 1000 Mbit/s wireless links and were reliable enough to carry emergency services.

The fact is you cannot provide individual 1000 Mbit/s wireless links to every dwelling now, it maybe possible later, but these residents deserve to have service now not in 6 or 10 years time.

Does anybody really understand what harm is being done to the UK whilst millions of homes have little or no broadband, I doubt it. Where would the industrial revolution be now if wew kept on using Canels instead on developing railways.

If the last mile links are large, and the network were structured as BT is now then you would only need to provide around 7000 backhaul links to the exchanges, upgrading equipment is not a problem either.

Part of our tender bid is that we provide ducts to renew electricity services and cables. The disruption this would save in future roadwarks would more than offset the cost of 1000 Mbit/s fibre provision.

Regards

Bill Mabey
Internal Communication Systems
Unit 88
Capital Business Centre
22 Carlton Road
South Croudon
CR2 0BS

T: 020 8916 2272
F: 020 8916 2273
E: bill.mabey@intcoms.co.uk

"The residential cost of this 10 Mbit/s service will be £15.00 per month."

Really? 10Mbps using 21CN WBC will cost more than this, unless there is a usage allowance or payg type pricing for actually using it.

10Mbps when 50Mbps is available to 50% of the country does not look that good.

In our place, broadband is really scarce. But it's getting cheaper and cheaper now.

Improve your health with the Best Colon Cleaner: colon cleanser

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

"The residential cost of this 10 Mbit/s service will be £15.00 per month."

Really? 10Mbps using 21CN WBC will cost more than this, unless there is a usage allowance or payg type pricing for actually using it.

10Mbps when 50Mbps is available to 50% of the country does not look that good.

10Mbps symmetrical in places where >8Mbps doesn't exist looks better though.

Upstream wise 10Mbps symmetrical looks great full stop.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Tue 08-Sep-09 15:05:22)

Bill - the future for delivery to the home is fibre, though I understand your spin as you need to keep your business afloat. As multimedia demand continues to grow, where will a HDTV future leave wireless? Another Ionica if you ask me. (Check wikipedia uk for "Ionica". Companies like H20 Networks are proving the demand for fibre - and the speed it brings - is there and is set to outgrow wireless.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

What about Wireless links from the Exchange to the Street Cabinets. This would seem to be quite a low cost option

Low cost but impractical. Also doesn't alleviate the need for an MSAN and power supply in the cabinet.

Hi anonymous,

I am not one to disagree that fibre is the ideal delivery to the home.. however the practicalities and cost of this in lower populated areas mean it will not be there for many years.

I am aware of Ionica, they tried to do wireless at a time when BT had a much greater stranglehold on the industry. a brave attempt but doomed as they had to connect to BT at some point.. read the history and you will see what fate befell them.

With wireless provision of broadband, the option of IP telephony etc.. then there is a means of breaking free from the clutches of the top heavy incumbents..

I know for certain that the customers we have now and have had for nearly 5 years would not be entirely impressed if they had been told back then that "wait for fibre to come, it will be soon".

Until the government misappropriates large sums of public money on fibre infrastructure , supplied by over priced "friendly" large organisations (which i am sure it will eventually) there is an ever increasing vacuum in the broadband market.. Fixed Wireless (not wifi) is the best fit for this on a cost and speed of rollout basis alone..

As has been expressed by another post, if the gov were to spend a small fraction of what they have thrown at ADSL provision at wireless, then wireless could be nationwide in coverage with a focus on where other technologies fail miserably.

HDTV is best provided the way it has always been provided effectively.. Satellite or (less effectively) terrestial transmission. Why spend millions to put in fibre in order to replace a perfectly viable broadcast medium such as satellite?. they have plenty of spectrum for channels, video compression techniques are ever improving so the efficiency of this spectrum will increase over time too.

I would be interested to know the carbon footprint impact of all the terrestial TV transmitters in comparison to satellites, even when including the cost of making the satellite and popping it out into space.

If they scrapped terestial TV then look at all that mast space that would be free for fixed wireless !

In much the same way you say "fibre is the future", "satellite is the future for broadcast TV" ,but like broadband despite this obvious statement, Terestial TV still exists as it always has and will for some time to come.. ADSL and its limitations will also be here for many years to come.. something has to fill the gap

Cheers

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Bill - the future for delivery to the home is fibre, though I understand your spin as you need to keep your business afloat. As multimedia demand continues to grow, where will a HDTV future leave wireless? Another Ionica if you ask me. (Check wikipedia uk for "Ionica". Companies like H20 Networks are proving the demand for fibre - and the speed it brings - is there and is set to outgrow wireless.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

it would cost £300 a year each

ie £25 per month. How many will pay that ? Going to a meeting to complain is one thing, stumping up a £250 install fee and £25/month is another. Broadband is free, innit ?

Hey, that is good I was actually finding this with broadband and finally I got it here.

Thanks for this, I will definitely use this.

Hey Tim, I note that Rutland Telecom have been shortlisted for the solution at Selling. Their site says they gave a presentation yesterday, did you attend?

Yes I did attend!

I am one of 3 technical advisor's on the Selling Broadband Committee. For that reason I've stopped talking about this topic publicly.

There were in fact 3 presentations yesterday.

The presentations were mainly to show the residents the possible options, allow them to ask questions and see their reaction to the different options.

Regards,
Tim