|
Its great to see that competition at an infrastructure level is arriving in the UK's broadband market. From figures GTC has peiced together, there are now 823 telephone exchanges that either have been or are in the process of being unbundled - that accounts for about one in seven of the BT-owned buildings. But what is extraordinary is that 26 of them now have seven operators in them, all vying for the same business while 85% remain the sole territory of BT. Is this because they are unusually large exchanges? Or perhaps because these areas have unusually high demand for broadband? It doesn't seem so. Working with the information published on the excellent Samknows site, each operator can expect no more than about 1200 subscribers, assuming each of the operators has an equal chance of securing customers. There are a great many exchanges in the UK where an operator might expect to glean this number of new customers, and with over 5,600 to chose from there are plenty to pick where the only competition will be BT.
So what is it that links this select group if its not size and demand? All bar one of these exchanges are in London (Rochdale is the only non-London member of this select club). Certainly London demonstrates strong demand but so does rural Buckinghamshire and Northumberland where a number of exchanges appear to have the size and demand yet have failed to attract a single LLU operator. The only key factor which separates London from many other exchnage areas is loop-length - an unbundler can be sure that more customers reside nearer the exchange, and therefore can recieve a strong, reliable signal - and that they wont have DACS which is not necessarily the case in more rural areas.
So while the exchange in the rural commuter town of Princes Risborough may demonstrate the demand and may have the scale, it is also serves remote villages with long loop lengths and DACS. While BT is delivering broadband to many of these areas, there apparently are safer places to go for the unbundlers - even if it means splitting the spoils seven ways.
|
|
|
|
|
30 March Yorkshire & Beyond GTC presented at the "Yorkshire & Beyond" conference in Harrogate - run by CBN and sponsored by Yorkshire Forward. The conference focussed on the state of play of broadband in Yorkshire, and on the exciting broadband future being carved out. Yorkshire is in many ways now the heart of broadband development in the UK. Leading up to this point, the combined work of the Adit to ensure good ADSL coverage, and Mark Firth's work at Yorkshire Forward to ensure those in more remote areas weren't disadvantaged has put Yorkshire in the premier league of broadband use and technology. The conference heard from projects like the community scheme in Biggin - a wireless scheme run by the local communty which has had a remarkable impact. Rather than focussing on the technology, as is often the tempation, the presentations focussed on their legacy - the impact on the local economy, business opportunities, and the envronment.
At the conference, Adit presented their plans for SYnet and NYnet, the open access fibre networks spanning South and North Yorkshire. When complete, these projects should have a remarkable impact on the state of the broadband market, not just in Yorkshire but across the UK. Adrian Wooster's presentation, in contrast, focussed on how smaller smaller, localised projects are not only achievable and make sense but can also have a significant impact on the economy, community, and individuals.
For a copy of the presentation, click here . |
|
|
OfCom warns developers about a fibre-based diet |
|
|
|
|
OfCom have helpfully published their guidlines for developers thinking about installing fibre in their new housing projects. On the face of it, anything which helps encourage organisations to lift the UK from the lower depths of the world fibre league should be welcomed. However, this particular document really serves to support the recent Yankee Group report which indicated that the UK faces significant challenges over the coming years, and is likely to fall further behind, because the regulatory and competition landscapes are less then helpful. In this current document , OfCom makes it clear: - There is no Significant Market Powers ruling on fibre access networks. They only apply to copper and cable based networks. The only redress is to use open-market competition law, yet this is not an inherantly open market.
- Should BT decide to invest in fibre, there is no compulsion for them to do it through OpenReach. The implication is that BT Wholesale and Retail are free to invest in next generation fibre networks, and all that effort to open up BT's infrastructure only applies to legacy networks.
Not only was all that effort to force BT to loosen its grip on the market a perfect example of myopia, it also leaves the UK in a worse position than today. Given that any investment in fibre by anyone gives that organisation a localised monopoly for at least a generation, it seems curious that OfCom is so apparently ill prepared. But it seems truly astonishing that OfCom appears to think BT Retail/Wholesale might not have significant market powers, and could be a safe pair of hands for the future. What was the whole OpenReach negotiation about then!
|
|
|
|
Need for debate on openness of Fibre networks |
|
|
|
|
Recent conversations with industry commentators have highlighted to GTC the need for a more considered debate about the openness of the nascent fibre-to-the-premise projects. While it is very welcome that new entrant businesses are developing schemes in competition to the incumbents, there is a growing concern that the models they are adopting, often for lack of a yardstick, may reduce the opportunities for competition. There is a real danger that next generation infrastructures may create regional monopolies which are likely to last the lifetime of the asset in the ground - likely to outlast many readers of this item. While the current clutch of projects might give the incumbent some welcome competition, it will leave individual consumers with little choice, and there will be no motivation for the operators to innovate. In addition, some of the technology choices being made also limit the options for unbundling, and may also curtail the service choices; so while they appear open, in reality the architecture may deter businesses looking to differentiate with innovative services. GTC has produced a short technology essay looking at the possible points of competition in an optical network, and considers the impact architecture can have on service offerings and future innovation. The hope is that this paper helps to develop the debate so that we can hope to enjoy innovative and exciting services for the next 100 years. The essay can be found here . |
|
|
McAfee - you don't care about me enough |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
|
| Results 34 - 44 of 54 |
Lastest updates to the site 
