In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What a novel idea .

LOL Rather than indirectly through their normal bills

And taxes. That couldn't be where BDUK money comes from, surely?

Surely that is what BT are doing now with FTTC and FTTP, the start of a complete fibre telecoms system, and the best part is they are effectivly getting large sums of money to upgrade some of the network, where they get BDUK funding. Then with FTTP on demand even the customers will be directly paying towards upgrading the network.

Eventually they may gradually upgrade more areas to full fibre, bit by bit spreading that massive cost out over the years.

When I'm being positive, I have exactly the same thoughts.

When I'm being even more positive, the FOX exchanges are a distinct pointer in exactly this direction - allowing BT to aim at removing the cost of the exchange building. It's almost a roots-upward 21CN using fibre.

But when I'm being negative, I wonder if this is all something of a dead-end, like TPON. Both aspects get questioned on scale...

Will the technology deployed for Fibre-on-demand really be able to cope with every house in the area (eventually) being swapped onto GPON fibre? Will it truly give everyone future-proof speeds?

Will the ad-hoc deployment of fibre - to individual "rich" homes on demand - really lay the groundwork (splitters, manifolds, ducting, etc) for future homes in the same direction to be easily connected? Will the ad-hoc nature ever lead to a "planned" network?

The FOX exchanges are the other way around: Will their planned nature be affordable? Will it lead to widespread deployment?

PON has developments where it is going faster and faster and WDM gives the option of wavelength unbundling, though Openreach is not offering this yet.

TPON was created in the days when fibre for consumer internet was considered the realm of billionaires so never considered for more than voice. Voice is destined to be just another data channel.

Fibre on Demand will involve the usual FTTP kit so the manifold close to the property ordering will support another 7 or 11 properties. The first person ordered will not be expected to underwrite the full cost of this roll-out, question is really how much for the first, and whether getting 2 or 3 to signup at same time might reduce price.

FoX is a 20 to 30 year time plan who knows wireless may be the king by then or we will be living in megacities with just automated farms

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

FoX is a 20 to 30 year time plan who knows wireless may be the king by then or we will be living in megacities with just automated farms ...

... owned by Sky.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The first person ordered will not be expected to underwrite the full cost of this roll-out, question is really how much for the first, and whether getting 2 or 3 to signup at same time might reduce price.

That'll be interesting to see.

While looking at the power aspects (for arguing with you-know-who), I can see that electricity has gone the other way - at least according to the electricians working at the coal-face. Because people are free to choose DNO, they can no longer charge the cost of a new supply over a number of years. Instead you get stung for the whole cost in one go - and you take the hit for the entire cost of a new transformer if it is needed. crazy!

Perhaps the concept of 1 main wholesale source for access isn't so dumb. Especially as the government's intended competitor isn't playing ball at nationwide thinking.

FoX is a 20 to 30 year time plan who knows wireless may be the king by then or we will be living in megacities with just automated farms

Indeed - crystall balls on maximum, Captain.

Though I don't think wireless will *ever* be able to replace fixed provision for everyone.