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.