D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] Possible solution for faster broadband to rural areas


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:57:20AM +0100, tom wrote:
> On 28/07/10 21:25, Rob Beard wrote:
> >....
> >Maybe, I guess 2 to 3 miles you're still going to get slower speeds.
> >
> >The other option Virgin were looking at was putting their own
> >poles up, I presume putting a pole in, or re-using an existing
> >telegraph pole is going to be cheaper than digging to lay cables.
> BT - who generally own the poles - would want some rent for that and
> they'd have to make a profit for their shareholders...
> Putting up your own poles is not cheap and then you generally have
> to pay rent to the landowners whose land you cross.
> When I worked for BT in the 1980's is was said that each phone
> connection to a house cost in the region of £2000 (2k).

There is something about the telephone business that strikes me as
"unreal". For example

- Digging a ditch in the road
- Laying cable / erecting poles
- Installing nice cabinets
- Laying more cable to a house in the middle of nowhere
- Recovery the cost in one year

Yes that is expensive

- Updating an existing cabinet with newer technology in such a way as to
  encourage future competition and upgradeability. Particularly from small

- Striking a deal with eg the Water or the Gas or Electricity to share
  costs when they next dig up the entire road to lay fibre to all. With
  Government compulsion. Is it possible to pass fibre down the water pipe?

- Making it simpler for third parties to connect fibre to houses (obviously
  different rules would have to apply between the centre of Plymouth and
  the conurbation of Little Munching - or whereever)

- Wait for a suitable recession, Government provides funds and recover
  costs over any use of telephone, internet, Smart Grid or whatever over
  the next 10 years.

That does not strike me as expensive for three reasons:

- In a recession unemployment goes up so the cost is the differential
  between social welfare payments and wages. I am not advocating work for
  benefits per se, but in effect paying companies not to fire people.

- If done to allow future competition, then infrastructure is improved at a
  lower cost, making it easier for the Country to compete. <shudder>Video calls etc

- If amortised over all users and over say 10 years then cost should not be
  extortionate.  If the Smart Grid cuts electricity supply then energy
  companies would also have to pay part of the installation costs.
  Obviously as soon as the cost is recovered then bills are cut.

Photocopies or faxes of my signature are not binding. 
This email has been signed with an electronic signature in accordance with 
subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.
Digital Key Signature: GPG RSA 0xFB447AA1 
Thu Jul 29 08:35:42 BST 2010

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq