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.