In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

VM would not be investing this sort of money without seeing a return on it

So when they don't get the return, they will pull the plug. Bye Bye Richard.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Hmm interesting - are you that the only limitation on sending data over a single fibre is the hardware both ends? There are quite a few 40Gb and 100Gb links over single fibres in the BT network.

I guess the man is referring to pushing fibre deeper into the access network.

As BT is one of the prime movers within the R&D work on G.fast, I don't think you can say they don't deserve to make use of advances inherent in the process of taking it from a research project into live silicon, then into live service.

I don't think it is a coincidence that BT went cool on the idea of including 20% of FTTP in their rollout at about the same time as G.fast was starting to look promising at near-gigabit speeds - at least for near DP distances.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Excellent news. We will see what effect this has on BT's next move.

Haven't we already seen it?

It certainly looks like they'll go for G.fast in a big way, having told government committee that they don't see a place for full FTTH.

At first, G.fast from the cabinets as today, and later with deployments closer to, or at the DP.

Let's see if BT can really open the chequebook for something other than sports rights. I am not convinced less than £100 of CapEx per premises passed will cut it this time. See how deep their pockets can go given they, unlike VM, will have to wholesale.

I guess the capex investment is likely to be limited to what you think you can get back, while limiting the risk that you don't get enough back. Being only able to wholesale probably limits the total capex you are willing to gamble, as you have more limited returns than with full vertical provisioning.

Cioffi reckoned on a max of $300 per premises as the top end that risk will allow; I can only see BT getting close to that if it can see a £10pm premium at least.

well doing it from cabinets only is doing it a bit lazily and cheap? as it only works properly at very short distances right?

Hence my previous message.

See the two links in Spud' message - somewhere in those two, you'll detect a hint that BT see a cabinet-based solution as a viable start, at least.

Also take a look at this link, and look for the comment by Neil McRae. Unconfirmed that it really is that person, but there is someone of that name who is a network architect at BT. http://nextgenerationoptical.com/speaker/neil-mcrae/

And that would in itself bring ultra fast to 26% of UK households, and with the range doubling tricks 56% of households

Now if VM rolling out to 4 million was to mean they gained 2 million customers rather than the 1/3rd which is normal even after 15 years of roll-out then that might change BT's mind.

Remember BT is going to be busy till 2017 with the BDUK contracts

He's interesting. Prompted by a conversation I tried to find out what he actually does and no-one seems to know.

Telcos and cable companies have core IP and transmission network architecture, then access network architecture, while he seems to speak with 'authority' on everything. However none of the BT bods I spoke to seem to know what his contribution to the engineering of them is.

Maybe he's the 'face' of the architecture group who attends the high level meetings while the various specialists who are designing the solutions work in the background. That I have seen elsewhere, albeit split into core and access.

yeah well, BT have a big fat benefit cheque for the very purpose of "rural areas" so why would VM spend their money there?

the 2017 BT targets look very rosy , albeit very similar to the 2012 targets so all is well with the world?

...

In reply to a post by MHC:

And the comments from Virgin's CEO that they will not be doing any rural areas - "because that is BT's job" shows just how they want to Cherry Pick again.

Why is this post rubbish?

It is a statement of fact surely? THe BDUK process went to great lengths to ensure Openreach were the only viable solution to fund by demanding open access/wholesale as a criteria.

What commercial provider in their right mind would invest in an area knowing that their main competitor can overbuild them and have it paid for out of the public purse?

This is what happens when government interfere with an industry , it creates a monopoly whereby everybody suffers..

it is back to the 70's we go..

In reply to a post by MCM:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

VM is a pure commercial operator BT is not. The government subsidised rollout is bring Broadband to rural areas. VM are hardly going to try to compete with a subsidised rollout

More of the usual rubbish one has come to expect from your posts.