Broadband Costs by Population Density

Below gives the cost per home passed and gives an indication of where Broadand becomes to expensive to roll out

Cost per Home Passed

London £250
>then 500K population £400
>then 200K population £475
20K lines clustered £400
20K Lines Sparse £800
10K lines clustered £475
10K lines clustered £1200
3K lines clustered £475
3K lines Sparse £1200
1K lines clustered £600
1K lines sparse £2000
>1K lines clustered £900
>1K lines clustered £3300

You have 1 hour to post a reference to where these numbers come from, there are so many unknowns in what you posted that it is misleading

Interesting range of numbers, but a bit meaningless without the underlying assumptions!

What a doubting Thomas you are. You denied that proposals existed for an Broadband Consortium as well

I get a very strong impression that you work for BT or are involved with BT because you are always very biased towards BT. It comes over very strongly in your posts.

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/policy/110301nextgenera...

Maybe rural farmers should charge appropriate prices for milk, eggs, cattle and crops based on the location of the consumer.

It is not the consumer but who they wholesale to. Those costs will be included in the retail price

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

What a doubting Thomas you are. You denied that proposals existed for an Broadband Consortium as well

I get a very strong impression that you work for BT or are involved with BT because you are always very biased towards BT. It comes over very strongly in your posts.

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/policy/110301nextgenera...

Page 6 of http://www.broadbanduk.org/component/option,com_docm... has the stats that is taken from.

He was right regarding a 'broadband consortium', it's Fujitsu building a Cisco based network not a consortium of UK service providers those guys are going to be customers of the 'consortium'.

FYI Virgin themselves are doing another FTTP trial, as are Talk Talk and Sky. FTTP trials are the in thing and an NGA consortium of sorts has been mooted however it's not an FTTP build.

The main issue for Talk Talk and Sky is that they both go for the mass market with low pricing, not conducive to NGA.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Maybe rural farmers should charge appropriate prices for milk, eggs, cattle and crops based on the location of the consumer.

Given the 'consumer' to the farmers is a distribution centre and ongoing logistics costs from there are paid by the retail customer it's not an issue.

Can't really do the same with physical infrastructure.

Your high number of contentious/ill-informed/fanciful/unrealistic threads is getting extremely tedious, quite apart from making you look rather naive.

When you start questioning MrSaffron's integrity you become merely pathetic.

Why don't you just answer his question? The last thing we want here is unsubstantiated figures that purport to be well-founded.

Put up or shut up.

You state:

"Below gives the cost per home passed..." which implies that this is the one and only accurate cost that will always apply, and then proceed to merely quote some figures created by a firm of consultants who have never rolled out a network in their lives!

The last Analysys Mason report on the cost of fibre deployment I saw (produced for BDUK iirc) contained some very broad-brush, unsubstantiated assumptions on basic costs.

Much of the problem with Cable comes from its early history when lots of small franchises were handed out and no real technical requirements were laid down so we ended up with dozens of different networks with some being a lot better than the others. They also had their own support centres, accounts and systems. These systems were also designed for TV. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to get to the point where it is largely a single cohesive network and more important that it now makes a profit.
This consortium probably offers the best chance to seriously start extending coverage and with a network that is as future proof as possible. I am sure it will not go forward without obstacles being thrown in its way but it is a powerful consortium that I am sure will overcome whatever issues are thrown at it. It also offers the best chance to have a serious competitor to BT that is not just reselling the BT product

Cots at this level will always be averages. You do not calculate exact costs for every scenario

How do you think companies tender for large contracts? They will calculate an average and add some contingency

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Given the 'consumer' to the farmers is a distribution centre and ongoing logistics costs from there are paid by the retail customer it's not an issue.

Can't really do the same with physical infrastructure.

I didn't say anything about infrastructure. I meant that perhaps the rural people should treat non-rural people with equal disdain when it comes to something they have an abundance of.

but they are not averages as you are trying to claim, far from it

You cost on the basis of average and add some contingency. Thats how you do costings. You do not go around the UK calculating the exact cost to enable every line

You know the cost per Km of Hard Digg, You know the cost of Fibbre, You know the cost of putting the fibre in and you know your labour costs

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I didn't say anything about infrastructure. I meant that perhaps the rural people should treat non-rural people with equal disdain when it comes to something they have an abundance of.

Sadly rural people rather need the non-rural people to purchase such things to supply them a market for their goods. The same doesn't go for broadband internet.

Either way the two aren't comparable for several reasons as I'm sure you're aware, but a nice pop nonetheless. There's no disdain in the slightest, broadband infrastructure isn't something that can simply be shared or transported, the cost increment transporting large amounts of food to a warehouse are minimal, the costs of deploying next generation access can be hundreds of pounds per customer higher.

I would suggest that Peter knows more about the costs than you ever will.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Below gives the cost per home passed and gives an indication of where Broadand becomes to expensive to roll out

Cost per Home Passed

London £250
>then 500K population £400
>then 200K population £475
20K lines clustered £400
20K Lines Sparse £800
10K lines clustered £475
10K lines clustered £1200
3K lines clustered £475
3K lines Sparse £1200
1K lines clustered £600
1K lines sparse £2000
>1K lines clustered £900
>1K lines clustered £3300

good post, glad I cancelled my line rental so I am not subsidising someone in a 1k village getting FTTC.

you ok to give an answer to my question in the other thread about why this government money is targeted at rural areas? your last reply was about a 60% commercial rollout. All that reply tells me is why government money is been used for the other 40% but not why it has to be only rural parts of that 40% when there will be urban in that 40% as well.