How if they aren't taking account of return on investment do BT decide what's commercially viable, Bob?

If it were not about ongoing revenue gaps why wouldn't BT enable 100 home passed cabinets if they're near the fibre spine and power?

Please note that I'm not discussing total amounts of spend but amount per home passed.

In reply to a post by partial:

There is already a host of wholesale providers throughout the land. Within five miles of my none LLU, FTTC or BT ADSL2 house is fibre tubes dug in by BT, Cable and Wireless, Viatel, Scottish and Southern, Virgin. Level 3, NTL, Global Crossing and Vodafone.

Virgin and ntl?

I get what you're saying though, most people are an awful lot closer to fibre than they think, just a question of getting at the stuff to distribute it.

The costs though are not dropping BT are just passing more costs on to the taxpayers

That may or may not be the case, I was just highlighting the apparent discrepancy.

It is GAP funding I don't see what you do not understand. If some equipment in the exchanges and backhaul etc was rolled out as a part of the commercial rollout those costs are not a part of the GAP. Any cost recovery will be by means of the normal monthly ISP charge you pay for that element of the costs it does not need public subsidy

If equipment etc is common to the commercial rollout and the BDUK rollout ie exchange equipment and backhaul it makes no difference to the fact that it is commercial. BT cannot claim the same equipment is Commercial for the commercial rollout but needs subsidy for the BDUK rollout. It is either commercial or it is not. It should not come into the BDUK costs

Would have to rewind to find out who said the £29k but that was a figure used in the PAC today

To be honest that was about as in depth as they got, we did learn that power meters add to the cost of cabs compared to Northern Ireland

Post deleted by MHC

If you want to compare the "per property" cost in the BT funded and that in the subsidised rollout then the central infrastructure should be removed as they will be common across all.

A simple version:

£1m on infrastructure.
£2m to provide say 100,000 connections.

So, that is £30 per connection.

The subsidised contract to roll out another 100,000 costs say £3m - or also £30 per connection. That is the first thought and it looks as though there is no difference which is what the figure look like first off.

You can then look at it two ways: If you exclude the initial infrastructure cost, the first set actually had an incremental cost of £20 and for the second it increases to £30.

Or if you amortise the initial cost over the two sets they come in at £25 and £35

to clarify you mean are BT been over subsidised for these areas?

so 2.5billion is £37,878,787 per 1%.
the 700 million is £29,166,666 per 1%.
The total per 1% figure including the CapEx is £44,166,666

This is surprising, even without any subsidy the figure is barely diff to the first 66%.an extra 20% or so.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 18-Jul-13 06:22:25)