Has anyone read this article on rolling out fibre? I noted Peter Cochrane said "In 1986, I managed to get fibre to the home cheaper than copper ..." - not sure exactly what calculations he's using.

As for the costs of a national fibre network it's only about equivalent to three years worth of spending(probably less) on the Department for International Development(which for some obscure reason only Bono understands now gets 0.7% of GNI), and unlike DFID spending a fibre network would actually be an investment.

Based on the words he is quoted as saying he probably means the cost per metre of fibre and terminating kit was cheaper than copper equivalent. The issue is the copper is largely already in place, whereas rolling out the fibre is a lot of hours of labour and unless I am mistaken labour costs money.

Cochrane is very much involved with the Jersey FTTH roll-out now.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Given HS2 is largely to facilitate better transportation of freight, not people, I'm not sure how broadband would replace this.

I'm sure BT will magically find the money to do it when it becomes required or when others are threatening to roll it out. They claim to be able to deploy FTTP for £400-ish per premises passed so should be in a good place to do it.

I thought HS2 was about people, so freeing up freight capacity on the West Coast main line?

HS2 itself is about people.

But the act of taking the fast services off both the WCML and ECML is that both routes (and to some extent the MML too) not only gain the equivalent capacity for slow traffic (commuter, stopping, freight) but also gains from the extra, wasted, capacity of having to juggle both fast & slow services on the same lines.

The key trigger is WCML capacity (number of trains, rather than number of people); this had already gone through the equivalent of "make do and mend" in the last decade, and cost £10bn. It seems obvious that the next upgrade needs to be a complete re-do, without disturbing existing traffic.

In fibre terms, the last upgrade was a bit like the current FTTC rollout - making use of the best existing bits. The next upgrade needs to start from scratch, like overlaying with FTTP.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Given previous experience with BT it would seem sensible to assume they'll be tapping the taxpayer up for the majority of the cost.

Interesting question.

Having used the BDUK money to provide FTTC, most of these subsidised locations are now almost in the same circumstance as the unsubsidised, commercial, locations: Fibre is now within 500m - 1km for most of the subscribers, and an allowance for "future-proofing" has already been made.

When the power portion is not going to be an issue (ie using reverse power), I wonder what scope there will be to claim that large tracts are uncommercial, and worthy of government subsidy.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I thought HS2 was about people, so freeing up freight capacity on the West Coast main line?

Right, getting people out of the way of the freight.

This is a good point, assuming everyone has FTTC, most areas are equally "commercial" for g.fast or FTTP. A G.Fast node in a random rural area at the top of a telegraph pole probably serves as many people as one in a large town. It costs as much per household to run FTTP from the cab no matter if rural or city.

In fact, city means closing roads etc potentially, so probably cheaper rurally.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In a debate in a government committee, BT said they couldn't roll out the BDUK stuff any faster, even if they were given more money. They are ultimately limited by the amount of people, sufficiently skilled, that they can throw at the problem.

I reckon a nationwide rollout of FTTP would take the same kind of timescale as HS2, and burn through money at about the same rate - £2bn per year.

Not that I think HS2 should be scrapped - it shouldn't.

HS2 is 10-20 years too late, it allows faster travel, FTTP removes the need to travel at all.

Also HS2 is a joke in that it only helps small parts of the country, and hinders others, e.g. leicestershire will have the rail line going through it but not a station.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Given HS2 is largely to facilitate better transportation of freight, not people, I'm not sure how broadband would replace this.

I'm sure BT will magically find the money to do it when it becomes required or when others are threatening to roll it out. They claim to be able to deploy FTTP for £400-ish per premises passed so should be in a good place to do it.

thats news to me, ministers have been banging on about it been good for business people needing to travel.