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.