one fibre network

Would it be a good idea if these providers got together and built one network instead of having a load?

I know Open reach is kind of doing that and opening the network to over providers, just like they did with FTTC. It seems senseless and a waste of money to build multiple networks, also changing from one to another could be a pain in the neck. I know there can be problems changing on FTTC, but it don't happen very often.

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

Private companies don't waste money by investing in their roll outs, so there has to be a business case for overbuild, as it would be silly and somewhat seen as negligent by the shareholders if not. Even if there was money being wasted, it's not coming from the tax payer, so I don't really understand the issue.

I think it would be a terible idea for the government to have any form of control (in terms of ownership and day to day running) of our telecoms networks. The most effective model for almost everything in our world (apart from maybe healthcare) is a heavily & properly regulated private set of companies providing a service

People pick the wrong pony in this race, and simply look at companies bad, governments good. Let's be frank with all it's faults capitalism is always going to be better than communism. It's the regulators and thus governmentents who need to be setting targets & licensing requirements to encourage progression, this gives us the social improvements whilst allowing companies with real experience to deliver the economies and development.

really back the GPO -- you want A =- well the only think is b ands you wait 2 years for it

next question

Digital Region which was built in Yorkshire and cost 83m and realised only 2.7% of Digital Region's required 108,000 customers had signed up.

The estimated total cost of the project once it has ended is £83.3m.

this is why it does not with public networks

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

really back the GPO -- you want A =- well the only think is b ands you wait 2 years for it

next question

Eh, why are you quoting me, I certainly don't want anything to do with public ownership like i said!

In fact I was one of the people who gave multiple pieces of feedback at the public consultations against the Digital Region use of FTTC technology via Doncaster council. Even back then it was clear that unless it was FTTP then the money would end up being wasted - which is was. They were told by many at the time it was a white elephant!

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

That ship sailed in the 1980s when Thatcher privatised BT. She realised that the progress we have enjoyed since would never have occurred in state hands.

The pace of change in telecoms (and Information Technology) is too fast for political leadership, unfortunately.

I agree that building two or three GPON networks in a town is lunacy, but that is how commercial competition works. You have to "pass" enough homes to get to a take up percentage for the network to be viable. A big enough town/city, can support this.

The long term question is can the networks be maintained. As we see with Virgin Media's cabinets that are often neglected, will the same happen to the alternate FTTP networks? Will they invest in XGPON or faster when the time comes.

On Community Fibre which uses OR's ducts and poles. It already has XGPON.


Once a fibre network is built out, upgrade say from GPON to XGPON is mainly a matter of replacing splitters and the boxes at either end. Much much cheaper than initial fibre rollout costs.

I cant think of one thing the Government runs well so why would you trust then to deliver FTTP ?

In reply to a post by heathrow:

On Community Fibre which uses OR's ducts and poles. It already has XGPON.


Once a fibre network is built out, upgrade say from GPON to XGPON is mainly a matter of replacing splitters and the boxes at either end. Much much cheaper than initial fibre rollout costs.

Shouldn’t have to change splitters, as they’re also part of the passive network (PON). The only things that change from GPON to XGSPON are the actives on each end. Furthermore GPON and XGSPON kit can happily coexist together on the same PON as they use slightly different wavelengths on downstream and upstream. So providers could roll it out gradually as they desired, wouldn’t need to Big Bang it.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Would it be a good idea if these providers got together and built one network instead of having a load?

I know Open reach is kind of doing that and opening the network to over providers, just like they did with FTTC. It seems senseless and a waste of money to build multiple networks, also changing from one to another could be a pain in the neck. I know there can be problems changing on FTTC, but it don't happen very often.

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

Definitely 100% no!

The modern case study of what can happen when the politicians get their grubby claws into what starts as a seemingly well intentioned idea about a “National Broadband Network” .....is to look over the water at what happened when Australia tried exactly that with their NBN. It was an unmitigated disaster.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

It was an unmitigated disaster.

cost a fortune and took so long the next set of politicians neutered the vision. So the money was spent and the homes (taxpayers) in many areas ended up with no better than they started with, unreliable DOCSIS coax on aging hardware.

Ok, I get the point from all the replies, so no government involvement . But it still seems stupid to have different networks, maybe if all the providers got together to set up a network and all have a share in it, I am not fond of the idea that Openreach should have full control over it. Have enough problems with open reach not doing repairs as it is, not me, but other people.
There was some news in our local paper last week of someone losing money because OpenReach are taking so long to fix her line.

Also, one network would make it easier to change providers, just like on FTTC/ADSL. We have a fibre company digging up the roads and laying fibre down as I type this, so if another fibre company decided to set up here, we would have another lot of digging up the roads. I know Open Reach uses drop cables for their fibre, maybe a better way of doing things, save digging up gardens or driveways.

What happens if this company that is doing fibre here don't get enough subscribers, they will go out of business and then the network is left, unless another company takes it over.

it just seems a waste to me.

I agree with the other comments, you only have to look at the recent £5 billion promised for full fibre (or was it gigabit capable, who knows) and what is actually now going to be spent to know any government is going to make a mess of it.

We can only dream of a single full fibre infrastructure across the entire UK where you have the freedom to choose what ISP you go with but its never going to happen anytime soon (if ever) sadly.

Edited by deleted (Thu 11-Feb-21 09:33:16)

We already have one National ( nearly) telecoms infrastructure provider. Makes sense to use them.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

Yes, comrade. Even before I read the replies I know you were in for a hard time. I half joked about voting Labour and got a grief.

I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

So now what's happening. Capitalism is allowing anyone with deep enough pockets to come along and dig up your road for FTTP. Near me there are three sets of cables, Openreach, Virgin and CityFIbre. Those are the three 'big' players. But in other areas small operators are doing the same. Clearly there's a lot of money to be made. But are these smaller companies in the communications business or are they planning on becoming just big enough and valuable enough to be bought out by the bigger firms? I predict there will only be three or four big FTTP providers in a few years, they will all either merge or be bought out.

When that happened with TV there was only one set of cables down your street. But when it happens to FTTP there could be three cables all belonging to the same company. What a waste. Not only of money but the environmental cost must be huge.

In reply to a post by witchunt:

We already have one National ( nearly) telecoms infrastructure provider. Makes sense to use them.

Its an interesting one, a lot of non Openreach (aka BT) money from the likes of BDUK, individuals, communities and local authorises have been ploughed into funding (no stake so it isn't being invested with a financial return) the Openreach owned infrastructure but the only financial beneficiaries of that is BT shareholders. I don't know what else can be done but this has never sat well with me.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

I half joked about voting Labour and got grief.

If its the post I'm thinking of I remember you getting off very very lightly politics is reserved for firework nights in 'The Park'

Long-term what makes the most sense is for the whole country to have a single 1:32 PON deployed with some kind of neutral wholesaler. In fact, deployment of CBTs with 5% of outlets (or more near commercial properties) being direct (non-PON) cores back to handover points would allow for fast setup of PtP links for leased lines... if you're thinking big that might save money.

Public ownership makes a lot of sense, but the points about telecoms and politics not mixing are valid. I'll sit on the fence.

Given the current situation in the UK I'm glad altnets have a viable business model, as they are what will drag Openreach towards symmetrical speeds. It's hard for BT/OR to sell 900/110 when an alternative is offering 900/900 for a lower price.

On the question of environmental cost, disruption etc. - with the use of PIA that will be reduced. My area is scheduled for both Openreach and Community Fibre infrastructure - OR have started at one end clearing ducts and CF have started at the other. By the time they cross over the ducts should be clear and far fewer civils will be required.

That's good. I worked in a telecoms related role - the cost of a dig in London was £90/metre. Avoiding truck rolls is key to keeping upgrade costs down.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

Thatcher planned this in the 1980s and wanted to copy the USA model. Thankfully others realised the problems the US had.

Friends in the US have only ONE internet provider available, distances are too far for DSL, and so its coax HFC cable. (Or mobile data, which may become the only competition in time).

You can see why Starlink is interesting to many in the USA.

Which of the dozen owning companies would fix the issues when they arise?

I agree, and I worked on it for 3 years !

If they had gone straight to FTTP that would have got peoples attention, they were too late to the FTTC party and BT were just overbuilding where we deployed.

In reply to a post by dect:

Its an interesting one, a lot of non Openreach (aka BT) money from the likes of BDUK, individuals, communities and local authorises have been ploughed into funding (no stake so it isn't being invested with a financial return) the Openreach owned infrastructure but the only financial beneficiaries of that is BT shareholders. I don't know what else can be done but this has never sat well with me.

Yep, this is the problem I had when OR used to get the contract to put new networks in from BDUK, another private company getting money from the public purse.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Which of the dozen owning companies would fix the issues when they arise?

They would put money in to set up a company to do just that, fix problems.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

Yes, comrade. Even before I read the replies I know you were in for a hard time. I half joked about voting Labour and got a grief.

I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

So now what's happening. Capitalism is allowing anyone with deep enough pockets to come along and dig up your road for FTTP. Near me there are three sets of cables, Openreach, Virgin and CityFIbre. Those are the three 'big' players. But in other areas small operators are doing the same. Clearly there's a lot of money to be made. But are these smaller companies in the communications business or are they planning on becoming just big enough and valuable enough to be bought out by the bigger firms? I predict there will only be three or four big FTTP providers in a few years, they will all either merge or be bought out.

When that happened with TV there was only one set of cables down your street. But when it happens to FTTP there could be three cables all belonging to the same company. What a waste. Not only of money but the environmental cost must be huge.

I am not bothered with them giving me a hard time and in some ways I understand what they are saying, but it just seems such a waste. We have never had Cable TV here and I doubt it will happen now, we have got a company digging around to put fibre in if you read my other thread in this part of the forums. It is just a shame that it will only be used by one provider so no real competition, like people are finding out that use virgin, prices go up and what can most of them do, but leave Virgin and go back to some FTTC service. This is one reason why I am thinking very carefully if I want to leave the network I am on. don't get me wrong I am no fan of the company called BT and yes I know plusnet is part of them, but they operate separately and so far have been good and I don't end up chatting with someone in another country if I have a problem. I went to Plusnet after I left my wireless broadband, because they offered me a service at a good price.

To be honest, this country is so far behind other countries.

we have got a company digging around to put fibre

Which one? Several of them have wholesale arms (e.g. Gigaclear), or are wholesale only (e.g. Cityfibre). That means you get a choice of ISPs on the network - perhaps not as big a choice as on Openreach, but a choice nonetheless.

If you are happy with Plusnet and FTTC, then good for you. If you want something better, try fibre. If you are unhappy, you can always move back to Plusnet.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Which one? Several of them have wholesale arms (e.g. Gigaclear), or are wholesale only (e.g. Cityfibre). That means you get a choice of ISPs on the network - perhaps not as big a choice as on Openreach, but a choice nonetheless.

If you are happy with Plusnet and FTTC, then good for you. If you want something better, try fibre. If you are unhappy, you can always move back to Plusnet.

A company called Zzoomm and the spelling is not a mistake. They are only in one place and that is Henley on Thames, we are their second place, I have no idea why they choose here, i think they have been paid a large amount of money to come here.
The CEO of Zzoomm, Matthew Hare used to own Gigaclear.

I have said in the thread on here that I put about Zzoom, that I am undecided, I do not need the speed, so if Plusnet does me a good deal that is cheaper than Zzoomm I may stay as I am, but if the price is close to Zzoomm, then it will certainly give me more of an incentive to change. i have 11 months to make up my mid at least as my contract don't run out until next year and then that depends on if the network is up and running around here by then.


I just think it would have been a good idea for companies to get together. i doubt we will have another one anyway apart from BT and they will no doubt use their own ducts.

In reply to a post by heathrow:

That's good. I worked in a telecoms related role - the cost of a dig in London was £90/metre. Avoiding truck rolls is key to keeping upgrade costs down.

Definitely. It’s the raison d'etre of a PON architecture network. The “glass” really has terabits of potential bandwidth. Bandwidth upgrades should be a matter of replacing the active components at either end.

There already is news of Nokia and Vodafone lab testing 100G PON...
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/pon-systems/art...

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

To be honest, this country is so far behind other countries.

Depends on your lens. Be be careful what you wish for.

Here is a summary of the Australian experience of their own National Broadband Network effort. It’s been a decade+ long debacle.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/nat...

I loathe the expression 'future proof' but deploying redundant FTTP should mean that no digs would be required for a very long time.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Depends on your lens. Be be careful what you wish for.

Here is a summary of the Australian experience of their own National Broadband Network effort. It’s been a decade+ long debacle.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/nat...

Then you learn from others mistakes, I know this country is not very good at learning and is way behind on technology, sad really because we used to be up there with other countries.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Then you learn from others mistakes, I know this country is not very good at learning and is way behind on technology, sad really because we used to be up there with other countries.

I have family in the USA, and they would really like our FTTC services and choice of ISP via a neutral network such as OpenReach. The USA is way behind us.

Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?

Plenty of issues with VM and their high latency and slow downs in the evenings in certain areas. Gamers usually switch to FTTC for a better experience.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

I have family in the USA, and they would really like our FTTC services and choice of ISP via a neutral network such as OpenReach. The USA is way behind us.

I know that parts of the U.S have naff broadband, but I also know that when things go wrong it can be a pain to get things fixed as different providers argue with either about who is responsible to fix the problem.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?

I did say ok maybe not government led when people did not seem to like the idea, but maybe a consortium of companies just for the network. I never thought I would ever say that as i believe in competition, but i just don't think it makes sense in putting more and more fibre in the same street, digging up roads again and again, bad enough when the Gas digs up the road a day after it haver been dug up for electric repair or service

As for Zzoomm being cutting edge, maybe, but they are charging another tenner a month to get the same sped up and down, on the 100Mb/s download it is a measly 10Mb/s upload, more or less what I get now unless I paid extra, the same with a static IP address being a tenner a month. Maybe that is how they keep their prices lowish.
We will see what happens when/if it eventually reaches me.
My main problem with Zzoom is they are a new company, run by a CEO who already bailed out of one fibre network provider when he was offered a load of money,

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Plenty of issues with VM and their high latency and slow downs in the evenings in certain areas. Gamers usually switch to FTTC for a better experience.

I have heard about VM problems, I know people who use them and a couple are on the verge of moving elsewhere, one because of the constant problems, which does make me think if fibre is really more reliable, the other because of the price rise.

If there was ever to be one fibre network (which I don't expect there ever will be) whoever run it would have to be accountable to the end customer, one annoying problem with Openreach currently is that they hide behind the fact that your a customer of the ISP not them so they have lots of wriggle room when issues occur.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?

I did say ok maybe not government led when people did not seem to like the idea, but maybe a consortium of companies just for the network. I never thought I would ever say that as i believe in competition, but i just don't think it makes sense in putting more and more fibre in the same street, digging up roads again and again, bad enough when the Gas digs up the road a day after it haver been dug up for electric repair or service

As for Zzoomm being cutting edge, maybe, but they are charging another tenner a month to get the same sped up and down, on the 100Mb/s download it is a measly 10Mb/s upload, more or less what I get now unless I paid extra, the same with a static IP address being a tenner a month. Maybe that is how they keep their prices lowish.
We will see what happens when/if it eventually reaches me.
My main problem with Zzoom is they are a new company, run by a CEO who already bailed out of one fibre network provider when he was offered a load of money,

If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I know that parts of the U.S have naff broadband, but I also know that when things go wrong it can be a pain to get things fixed as different providers argue with either about who is responsible to fix the problem.

Its not "naff" as such, my family and friends in different parts of the US are all on cable, and have varying speeds from 100 Mbps upto 500 Mbps.

The problem is that there is no competition for cable, so if you want to change ISP, you have to move home (and city, and often state!).

So don't fall out with your ISP....

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!

That is the problem if it all comes down to being commercially viable, but surly digging a ton of trenches all over the place is not commercially viable, but the many it is.

It was just a thought.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Its not "naff" as such, my family and friends in different parts of the US are all on cable, and have varying speeds from 100 Mbps upto 500 Mbps.

The problem is that there is no competition for cable, so if you want to change ISP, you have to move home (and city, and often state!).

So don't fall out with your ISP....

Chatting to someone last night in the states, and she kept losing connection, she says it have been going on for a few weeks, and it is difficult to get anyone to look at it.

The problem is will we end up in the same situation? Some places still only have one Fibre company, so if they fall out with their ISP they have to go back to FTTC, in the years to come, who knows how long FTTC will keep going?
Be the same here when Zzoomm is up and running, want true Fibre, Zzoomm will be the only option. Open reach don't even have this city on their map for FTTH. There are some places around here, out in the sticks that have Gigaclear, which surprised me.

We will have to wait and see what happens

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!

That is the problem if it all comes down to being commercially viable, but surly digging a ton of trenches all over the place is not commercially viable, but the many it is.

It was just a thought.

Nobody wants multiple re-trenching of streets etc. A “one-dig” strategy therefore is a more feasible alternative than forcing competing networks to join as one super provider.

Beyond “one dig” there are several other things the regulator could do to appropriately enable competition without duplicating duct or network infrastructure.

1. Make PIA a far more (commercially) attractive proposition than what it is currently (although it’s better than what it first was). Less incentive to dig if it’s cheaper to use exiting pit and pipe.

2. Enforce similar wholesale network access as exists on the Openreach network. Although the weighted advantage of Openreach versus a relative minnow alt net would need careful consideration.

My opinion is that’s it wholly preferable to have a choice of several real network providers that then can challenge, innovate and compete on product choice and price rather than one monolithic, monopolistic player that would be a 40 year throwback to the bad old days of state owned monopoly telcos.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I have heard about VM problems, I know people who use them and a couple are on the verge of moving elsewhere, one because of the constant problems, which does make me think if fibre is really more reliable, the other because of the price rise.

VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.

Note also that most of Virgin Media's network is not fibre. Those parts which are are using RFoG (Radio Frequency over Glass), which is the same cable TV architecture delivered over fibre.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.

A legacy of the 20+ companies that built each area to different standards. Of course in 1991 they were building for cable TV, not for broadband. Not impossible to resolve, but hard without income, and with a poor network, customers don't stay.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.

Note also that most of Virgin Media's network is not fibre. Those parts which are are using RFoG (Radio Frequency over Glass), which is the same cable TV architecture delivered over fibre.

Our phone network was never meant for broadband either, copper wires was certainly not meant for what it is being used for, but I do get your meaning about the Virgin network.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Our phone network was never meant for broadband either, copper wires was certainly not meant for what it is being used for, but I do get your meaning about the Virgin network.

A big difference is the POTS network is point to point, the VM cable network is a shared medium. In 1991 it was all analogue television channels, and broadcast to multiple homes, with some sort of descrambler in the "set top box".

Broadband changed this, which is where the DOCSIS standard comes from, and it required quite a few UK companies to retrofit their street cabinets to allow two way communication!

Here we were NTL (formerly CableTel) and in summer 1999 they started a trial in the Guildford head-end, which included my town. So I jumped on the trial, in my old place, with the 3com modem - most of the country was using un-metered dialup services at 56k.

Then in early 2000 Telewest's ISP division Blueyonder did something similar. However friends of mine lived in areas served by Eurobell cable, whom took years to upgrade, and still never managed it, eventually selling out to Telewest. Which meant in those towns, ADSL via the Openreach copper became popular. Telewest & NTL then merged quite late, and bought the mobile business and rebranded as VM.

At this point we had a large enough company to start to challenge BT / Openreach in many towns and cities, if not nationwide.

Edited by jchamier (Sat 13-Feb-21 20:06:30)

About the same time, 1999 I was one of the first getting connected to the same thing in Sydney - Optusnet which was a new the new HFC network somewhat controversially aerially overlaid over the predominant Telstra legacy wired infrastructure, although they too were rolling out Foxtel HFC. As I recall it was a screaming 10M down/512K up service and the cable modem was around half the size of a shoebox - but around half as thick.

Two years later I was in N7, Holloway in North London connecting to much the same thing but courtesy of Cable London /Telewest.

Edit - deep concentration after a few glasses of Pinot, I recall it was actually 1998 and the gear (modem and a much of the gear like the in-line amps on “hardline” coax strung up between poles (bloody yuck) was Scientific Atlanta. We imported a lot of tech from the seppo’s including their cable tv tech.

Edited by Pheasant (Sat 13-Feb-21 20:54:12)

I can see these other companies having to (or wanting to) open up their networks to other ISPs.
I know if you look at say KCOM/City Fibre etc - they are now or looking at looking to partnering with other ISP's.
I am guessing there's an Ofcom angle to this.. i.e. we won't regulate if you open the networks.

City Fibre and Gigaclear have partners today (Zen being a City Fibre one for example).

So part of me is excited to see more fibre players as that I am guessing will speed somethings up in terms of FTTP roll out - but for some time people may be limited to the company that put fibre in initially as you say - but at the same time they have made that investment - so they need ways of getting their investment back.

It’s a mixed blessing. And we are at the start of the AltNet fibre journey really, with lots and lots of players. There will be many years (possibly decades) of takeovers, buyouts and network consolidation to come yet.

I'd agree to an extent - just not that it should be in the hands of a single organisation (in particular not the government), but rather on all ISPs in a decentralised manner.

Openreach should in effect be something similar to LINX or the Internet Exchanges, whereby it's a non-profit body that's set up to coordinate between networks for a mutual benefit. For want of a better word, let's just refer to this as the National Network Exchange or NNX.

My view is slightly weird:
- Each line should be owned by the premises as part of the title deed of the property. The line, be it fibre or copper is a single pipe to the exchange, in effect dark fibre or unelectrified copper.
- Each line is equal to one share within the NNX. Premises can't do anything with the shareholding other than give it as a proxy to an ISP when the ISP provides a service. This is not a tradeable share, it's just a share that you as a customer give to your ISP in return for service.
- The ISP however, gains an extra share - by proxy on your behalf as their customer - in the NNX, thereby gaining influence within the NNX. Thereby the ISPs, just like LINX share, control the design of the NNX and should reform/restructure or new lines be created, then it's between the shareholding the ISPs have that give them the voting power.
- The ISP also becomes fully responsible for the line, and has to use it's influence within the NNX to provide service assurances, however this is relatively easy since they lose said influence in the NNX if they lose you as an unhappy customer. So the system is gamed in the consumers' favour and the ISPs gain from having more influence in network design and planning.

It does mean that the entire notion of Openreach is completely void, although the NNX would need a whole workforce of engineers and such like, but the fact of the matter is the line to each premises is in effect a single point-to-point dark fibre pipe. What happens over that line is solely a question between ISP and customer, and the ISP gains the capability of having a voice in the NNX's network due to having that relationship with the customer.

In this way, ISPs would work for you to your advantage not profiteering or paying any middle men. You can also apply the same model to Water, Gas and Electricity utilities, disbanding the dinosaurs that are Thames Water, Cadent and UKPowerNetworks (which if you've ever had to deal with loses you the will to live even more so than Openreach).

It's also for this reason I'm totally against the notion of using PONs that aren't point-to-point connections like copper is, as it's not sufficiently free to run whatever service you want.

In reply to a post by Pgre:

I know if you look at say KCOM/City Fibre etc - they are now or looking at looking to partnering with other ISP's.
I am guessing there's an Ofcom angle to this.. i.e. we won't regulate if you open the networks.

City Fibre and Gigaclear have partners today (Zen being a City Fibre one for example).

I'm surprised you used CityFibre as an example for this.

CityFibre aren't just "now looking" at partnering with other ISP's, it's their entire business model.
Like OpenReach they are a wholesaler.
You can't buy direct from CityFibre.

So who actually pays to get a line installed? Or upgraded from copper to fibre? Or fixed if it breaks? Is that down to the not for profit organisation or does it fall to the home owner as ownership of the line is part of the deeds? The benefit of an organisation owning the line is economies of scale as they can smooth the costs so that some customers don't see incredibly high costs.

The NNX collectively. Which the ISPs all subscribe and pay for with our monthly subscriptions.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

The NNX collectively. Which the ISPs all subscribe and pay for with our monthly subscriptions.

You could call it ‘line rental’ ?

Not sure why it needs the home owners to own the lines then - the not for profit company owns the lines and is responsible for maintenance and upgrades. Can't see any benefit in the home owners notionally owning the lines if all they are doing is paying a line rental.

Well there you go then.. I was just making the point that there's a wholesale market out there.

Its not about the homeowners owning the lines - from a customer POV it's no real difference... it's about not having BT or any single company owning the infrastructure, rather have it shared amongst ISPs, and not having competing alt nets having to dig up roads, and for the NNX to work as it should a solution thought up and run by engineers between engineers as a matter of necessity just like LINX.

And for the same network to handle things like RFOG for VM, leased lines for businesses and broadband for everyone else.

I really can't see how that works. Someone has to have a controlling interest in order to plan for line upgrades and someone has to be ultimately be responsible for fixing the lines. There has to be a controlling organisation that does this. ISPs could have shares in that organisation but the org itself still needs to exist - and in many ways the only difference from what you are suggesting and OpenReach is that OpenReach are a profit making organisation rather than not for profit and they don't have a monopoly as other providers are allowed to compete. So, turn it to not for profit and take away their competition and you have your end result.