Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

Still not enough penetration, especially if that service is shaped/throttled. I don't know what the state of play there is though.

As for that 'study' Andrue linked, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was funded by cable company. It wasn't even interested in giving video on demand a chance. They quite intentionally went out of their way to make it look bad. That's not science, it's marketing.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

I dont think that the UK needs FTTP yet but it does need the first stge of it ie FTTC and at the rate BT are going that could take 10 years.

In general the network neds to be there before technolgies etc come along to make use of it. It is no use developing a product that needs a large bandwidth if the network is not there.

In general the rolout should not be subsidised but that does not mean that the government could not make low costs loans available as which would spped up the rollout and encourage take up. You could market say try It for 3 Months for no more then you are paying now with a small connection charge. The probability is that if properly targeted the take up would be very high

In reply to a post by yarwell:

LOL. They appear to be entirely reliant on tax evasion too.

They also need more power stations to be built. Something else where 'Build them and they will come' applies, perhaps

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

it's at least 45% but only a couple of percent of those have opted for 50M.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

it's at least 45% but only a couple of percent of those have opted for 50M.

The emphasis being on population rather than location. Seems to be easily confused.

I'm afraid that my gut feeling is that FTTP is a non-starter until such point as one of two things apply:

1. The scrap value of the copper network substantially exceeds the total cost of replacing it with a pure-fibre network. This has to allow not only for the cost of putting in fibre and removing the old copper, but also for the cost of things like changing regulatory regimes to cope with the idea that Openreach don't do copper lines any more.
2. The maintenance costs of the network become sufficiently high due to theft and attempted theft of metals that it's worth paying the costs of going all-fibre for the deterrent effect. This means that you need to be able to get to the point where digging up any telco ducting gets you some cheap plastic, possibly some low-value metal armouring, and lots of cheap glass; if any part of the network still contains high-value metals like copper, it's worth a thief's while taking the chance.

There will, of course, be side benefits from going all-fibre; fixed speeds that are guaranteed stable is one, reliability for those of us not virtually living in the exchange is another (no more RFI investigations). However, I don't see anything coming up that will push the economics of fibre from a consumer demand direction.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

People are against public funding of it I think. Most on here would jump at the chance to have it and probably pay over the odds for it too, but that is a choice of what to use their personal after-tax income for, rather than effectively N billions more tax being used to provide it before they get to see the money in their pay.

Yup. My original question wasn't perhaps phrased very well

I suppose the point of my question really was to ask if anyone else can think of a good reason for FTTP. Kind of a plea for help. I know why I want it (geekish tendencies and the hope for a decent(*) VoD service) but no-one is going to pay billions of pounds just to give me fibre. We need something that several million people want

(*)7-day catchup has its uses but that's not my idea of VoD. My idea of VoD is any vintage - pulling direct from the studio at the minute of its release back to the days of B&W. Actually that's a point I never made about the ElReg article - channel hopping. My view of VoD is that instead of being timetables, channels become content or editorial based. So instead of BBC 1, ITV you have 'Crime', 'Documentary', 'Sport'. There's still a concept of somewhere to go that organises things for you and things to hop between but it's no longer tied to a specific time.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

it's at least 45%...

Whether it is 45% or 50% is it the population actually cabled or the populations of areas that had a franchise?

The original cabling plans went to us and further but they never made it here (& numerous other places) before running out of dosh. Plus there are many new build areas since they ground to a halt that may well not be cabled unless builders did specific deals (I don't have info either way).

Its only a guess, but it could easily be 75% or less of the population of the town that can actually get it if they want it.

VoD of any vintage - interesting storage system...

Even fairly small TV stations still archive off their old material from on demand storage, to tape robot systems for near on demand, i.e. can be re-ingested if it is actually needed. In short the cost of storing material is still high enough (at least when storing at 25Mbps or higher bit rates) that you cannot afford it.

Remember the gaming system that streamed video - now that could make use of FTTP very well, imagine being able to rent a game for 48 hours for say £7, and the video is rendered remotely at 1080p 25Mbps and streamed to you as you play. The console need only be able to play the video i.e. less hardcore graphics engine needed.

Combine that with the social side of XBox live, or PSN and friends could play a game as a group, without lengthy downloads, and play different games each Friday game night.