the ability to shove multiple light frequencies down one fibre exists. The standards don't really support multiple frequencies for gpon/xg/xgs pon.

The olt transciever and ont would have be different.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

The rental case would expose more clearly how dubious their business plans are to make money in the cut-throat retail ISP sector (which, frankly, nobody makes money out of)

We have an entire parlimentary debate about telegraph poles being installed because Alt Nets are trying to avoid renting ducts from OR via PIA. Gives a bit of a clue how tight margins are.

So why are they building their own network and not renting OR FTTP? I agree, the small Alt Nets don't make sense, but the large (CityFibre, nexfibre) show that Ofcom is not incorrect in having competition for OR, the sad things is the Alt Nets may prevent the other two entering towns; so the country is worse off.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/09/teleco...

In reply to a post by jchamier:

We have an entire parlimentary debate about telegraph poles being installed because Alt Nets are trying to avoid renting ducts from OR via PIA. Gives a bit of a clue how tight margins are.

Not really. Poles are going in because PIA is unavailable or unusable. I know of one company that preferentially builds poles over using PIA, the others it's a last resort. PIA moves a bunch of what would be capital expenditure on a pole to operational expenditure: exactly what a business on low margins building with debt would want.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

<Snip>

Ummm, okay?

Openreach didn't build PtP because they knew they'd have to unbundle it per law so ran with PON.

On PtP Switzerland, Sweden and France would like a chat: it works.

I advocated a personal preference for PtP because it allows operators to innovate rather than selling what Openreach want them to, how Openreach want them to and paying the price Openreach want them to leaving them with few options to differentiate themselves or make money while also lowering the cost of entry and minimising duplicated infrastructure.

I gave zero regard to the business case for Openreach as I was answering a post positing a solution we aren't going to get. I wasn't suggesting it as an option any more than Zarjaz was, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Still hope you felt better for writing it and appreciate your opinion that the commercial fundamentals for dark versus lit are the same.

If an altnet installs poles then that will pretty much stop openreach from doing the same. In many areas that could stop any commercial openreach rollout . Tactically speaking, that maybe a good move for an altnet.

I love this the money could be spent else where its like me saying to you dont spend your money on your new roof and holiday you should donate it all to your hospital instead of spending your money on things you want to do

its silly to think if BT wasnt spending 15 billion on its business that it would donate it to an hospital instead.
same as the HS2 money that 100 billion got spent of other projects NOT.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

We already have such a national, shared fibre network: it's the Openreach PON network.

Really? Not round here we don't. And there's very little sign that we ever will have.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Openreach, who already own the copper infrastructure had no financial incentive to run fibre alongside it to the same set of captive users, *until* competition forced them to do so.

Not true either. BT wanted to install a national fibre network starting in 1990, according to a former CTO, but a certain M Thatcher put the boot into their plans, in the name of competition. We could all have had FTTP 20 years ago. Read about it here.

In reply to a post by pyarwood:

I love this the money could be spent else where its like me saying to you dont spend your money on your new roof and holiday you should donate it all to your hospital instead of spending your money on things you want to do

its silly to think if BT wasnt spending 15 billion on its business that it would donate it to an hospital instead.
same as the HS2 money that 100 billion got spent of other projects NOT.

I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of business cases. As a country rather than a business we would be better off if investment was going to where it is desperately needed rather than in duplicating infrastructure.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Not really. Poles are going in because PIA is unavailable or unusable. I know of one company that preferentially builds poles over using PIA, the others it's a last resort. PIA moves a bunch of what would be capital expenditure on a pole to operational expenditure: exactly what a business on low margins building with debt would want.

Gotcha, that’s a good point, so working assumption is poles is where no ducts. Cheers.