I'm just digesting Telekom Austria's NGA plans made on Friday. The headline figure is that 150,000 homes (or 4% or households) will get either FTTH or FTTC in the initial rollout.
Only it's unclear if it is 150,000: compare the Investor Relations statement, intended for shareholders, and the Press Release, intended for journalists, both released on the same day on exactly the same subject.
IR statement: "It is planned to selectively rollout... to about 150,000 households"
Press Release: "Largest technology project of the 21st Century in Austria marks the beginning of a new era for the Fixed Net... a glass fiber project for over 150,000 households".
Having worked as a journalist, I'm well used to seeing hyped press releases. A clear case of one project serving two purposes. One placating beleagured shareholders worried about whether their euros are being well spent, and the future return of that expenditure. The other one trying to grab headlines.
We'll assume the about figure is the one to believe.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Extension of Britain's 50p NGA levy
I was somewhat taken aback this morning by Alcatel-Lucent's call that Britain's NGA levy should be extended to include mobile lines.
In case you missed it, the much awaited Carter report last month proposed that a 50p levy should be placed on all copper lines to aid the rollout of NGA to rural areas - the so-called 'Final Third' of the UK. That in itself caused a great deal of kerfuffle, particularly among the country's broadband laggard citizens. The action in my view is wholly justified - NGA is an expensive business and the benefits are clear.
But extending the levy to include mobile lines, as requested by AlcaLu's Northern Europe vp Houston Spencer, is not right. Granted, it would raise a huge quantity of money: currently £450m a year at 50p per month per active subscriber - thrice the level the copper tax would raise.
But it's not quite right that mobile should be 'taxed' to support what is essentially a fixed product. It is the UK's copper infrastructure that will be upgraded and replaced. Mobile could have a role to play in supporting high speed access for the final third, but it's likely to be 'supporting', only. Mobile speeds are far inferior to that offered by NGA (7.2Mbit/s is only a headline speed), and with keen noises coming from BT on FTTC rollout, that will comprise most of the Final Third rollout.
The subsidy deserves to stay levied on the fixed line customers who will directly benefit from this.
Let us not forget, however, that all these Digital Britain plans could be changed. They are open to consultation, and furthermore the UK may also have a new Government next year, which could turn several plans on their head. Let's hope for not too many changes.
In case you missed it, the much awaited Carter report last month proposed that a 50p levy should be placed on all copper lines to aid the rollout of NGA to rural areas - the so-called 'Final Third' of the UK. That in itself caused a great deal of kerfuffle, particularly among the country's broadband laggard citizens. The action in my view is wholly justified - NGA is an expensive business and the benefits are clear.
But extending the levy to include mobile lines, as requested by AlcaLu's Northern Europe vp Houston Spencer, is not right. Granted, it would raise a huge quantity of money: currently £450m a year at 50p per month per active subscriber - thrice the level the copper tax would raise.
But it's not quite right that mobile should be 'taxed' to support what is essentially a fixed product. It is the UK's copper infrastructure that will be upgraded and replaced. Mobile could have a role to play in supporting high speed access for the final third, but it's likely to be 'supporting', only. Mobile speeds are far inferior to that offered by NGA (7.2Mbit/s is only a headline speed), and with keen noises coming from BT on FTTC rollout, that will comprise most of the Final Third rollout.
The subsidy deserves to stay levied on the fixed line customers who will directly benefit from this.
Let us not forget, however, that all these Digital Britain plans could be changed. They are open to consultation, and furthermore the UK may also have a new Government next year, which could turn several plans on their head. Let's hope for not too many changes.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
France Telecom threatens to stop fibre rollout?
So France Telecom may stop rolling out fibre after all the progress in NGA that has happened over the last couple of years. If this really did happen, it would be a shame.
The French business daily Les Echos reported yesterday that FT had threatened to stop rolling out fibre due to last week's decision by regulator ARCEP that multiple fibres must be deployed to buildings in certain cities, rather than the single fibre alternative FT prefers. For obvious reasons, the monofibre solution suits FT, being cheaper than multiple fibres, and also giving it more control. Needless to say, alternative operators were delighted with this decision.
It's unlikely that much cost will be added by the multiple fibre approach, and should it help prevent a lot of arguments between operators in the future.
It's also unlikely at the end of the day that FT really will stop rolling out fibre.
Regulators and Governments are paranoid that operators will fail to roll out NGA, because it would be damaging to their respective countries. Operators naturally play to this paranoia to try to ensure they get their own way.
FT will resume rollout sooner or later, after the mindgames are complete. It would be commercial suicide not to.
The French business daily Les Echos reported yesterday that FT had threatened to stop rolling out fibre due to last week's decision by regulator ARCEP that multiple fibres must be deployed to buildings in certain cities, rather than the single fibre alternative FT prefers. For obvious reasons, the monofibre solution suits FT, being cheaper than multiple fibres, and also giving it more control. Needless to say, alternative operators were delighted with this decision.
It's unlikely that much cost will be added by the multiple fibre approach, and should it help prevent a lot of arguments between operators in the future.
It's also unlikely at the end of the day that FT really will stop rolling out fibre.
Regulators and Governments are paranoid that operators will fail to roll out NGA, because it would be damaging to their respective countries. Operators naturally play to this paranoia to try to ensure they get their own way.
FT will resume rollout sooner or later, after the mindgames are complete. It would be commercial suicide not to.
Digital Britain report requires a patchwork of answers
At last the UK is (preparing to) move forward with next-generation broadband, following the much awaiting final version of the Carter report on Digital Britain. It really has been some time coming, from a Government which had no direct policy on the subject for years. As widely reported in the media, the report proposes two means of improving the nation's infrastructure: a 50p levy on all copper lines to fund the rollout of next-generation access where the market will not provide it, and a universal service commitment which is intended to raise to a minimum of 2Mbit/s the quality of broadband for "virtually" everyone in the country.
Digesting and analysing the findings of the report has taken up a substantial amount of my time since the report launch, these being my initial thoughts. What is clear from the USC is that a patchwork of solutions will be needed: it is highly unlikely that a solution like cellular or satellite will be cost-effectively able to provide reliable 2Mbit/s coverage to the 11% of homes who currently have connections slower than that speed.
Satellite, purely by the laws of physics, suffers from latency problems, which won't be a lot of good for time-critical applications like gaming or VoIP, and it may cause VPN issues too. Satellite providers are trying to reduce latency, but still the laws of physics remain. Mobile should in theory be able to help, but in order to provide a 2Mbit/s service a great number of base stations would be needed in rural areas. One can sense that the business case for this is weak indeed.
Don't get me wrong. I think satellite has its place: in France the universal service commitment could in theory be entirely provided by satellite. But that's unlikely in the UK. The UK's USC demands of 2Mbit/s are four times faster than that of France, whose Government is only seeking 512Kbit/s.
And BT has expressed a wish for serious involvement in the USC, with a range of fibre and copper solutions to plug the gap, making a fixed alternative all the more likely. Those are in development right now.
Critical to the USC will of course be how the funds backing the scheme (separate to the 50pence levy) will be allocated by the Network Design and Procurement Group, the organisation set up explicitly with that function. There are many questions that have to be answered there, and we won't know for months how that will pan out.
What is for certain is that the broadband landscape in the UK will change markedly.
Of course, with potentially 90% NGA, a rather paltry 2Mbit/s for the slowest lines is going to be pretty slow. Therefore, we may be facing a new kind of digital divide.
Digesting and analysing the findings of the report has taken up a substantial amount of my time since the report launch, these being my initial thoughts. What is clear from the USC is that a patchwork of solutions will be needed: it is highly unlikely that a solution like cellular or satellite will be cost-effectively able to provide reliable 2Mbit/s coverage to the 11% of homes who currently have connections slower than that speed.
Satellite, purely by the laws of physics, suffers from latency problems, which won't be a lot of good for time-critical applications like gaming or VoIP, and it may cause VPN issues too. Satellite providers are trying to reduce latency, but still the laws of physics remain. Mobile should in theory be able to help, but in order to provide a 2Mbit/s service a great number of base stations would be needed in rural areas. One can sense that the business case for this is weak indeed.
Don't get me wrong. I think satellite has its place: in France the universal service commitment could in theory be entirely provided by satellite. But that's unlikely in the UK. The UK's USC demands of 2Mbit/s are four times faster than that of France, whose Government is only seeking 512Kbit/s.
And BT has expressed a wish for serious involvement in the USC, with a range of fibre and copper solutions to plug the gap, making a fixed alternative all the more likely. Those are in development right now.
Critical to the USC will of course be how the funds backing the scheme (separate to the 50pence levy) will be allocated by the Network Design and Procurement Group, the organisation set up explicitly with that function. There are many questions that have to be answered there, and we won't know for months how that will pan out.
What is for certain is that the broadband landscape in the UK will change markedly.
Of course, with potentially 90% NGA, a rather paltry 2Mbit/s for the slowest lines is going to be pretty slow. Therefore, we may be facing a new kind of digital divide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
