 When Government fails it’s own agenda – the sorry tale of fibre to the home.
One of the reasons true high-speed broadband connectivity faces an uphill challenge in the UK is the poor quality cabling that runs into the home.
The vast majority of telephone wire running along the pylons, dug into the ground, and strung into each home is copper – and sometimes not even that, but aluminium. Copper, whilst a reasonable choice for carrying voice at a realistic cost per meter, is not suited to conducting high-frequency signals necessary to carry high-speed broadband connections. Aluminium even less so.
OK, it can carry high-frequency signals over short distances, distances measured in hundreds of meters; hence the ability to carry adsl2 and vdsl services (24bit, 56mbit respectively). But only over short distances, and the bandwidth available is highly dependant upon a number of other factors, not least of all cable condition, interference, and external 'noise'.
The ideal medium is fibre optic cabling. It can carry thousands of separate communication channels, each at very very high speed. As it uses light as the transport medium, it is unaffected by external noise, signal interference, etc, and cable quality is not an issue. And it supports massive bandwidth. This is why it is used in the network backbones - or cores - the 'cables' that consist of the central national spanning networks of BT, Global Crossing, NTL, etc, to carry networks across the country. Imagine this connectivity direct to your home or place of work.
So before true high-speed connections can become available, the underling infrastructure needs massive improvement.
The telco’s all state that the major barrier to this is cost. This is true, bear in mind that the vast majority of the PSTN telephone network cabling was installed over a period of decades. In the 1940’s phone’s were a rarity, and it wasn’t until the 1960s/70’s that they became cheap enough for most households to consider one. I can still remember the telegraph polls being dug into our road in the early 1970’s. Thus, the cost was spread over decades, and was amortised (ie the cost was recovered) over many years.
To re-wire the nation would cost a fortune. But what about cable? Everyone knows it offers better possibilities than copper PSTN wire. Well….
In the early 90s with the deregulation of the telephone network, a number of cable companies sprang up in the UK, 22 or 23 if I recall correctly. There was considerable excitement over the possibility of cheap calls, cable TV, and broadband connectivity. Franchises were granted over the UK, and digging began… Companies were so eager to lay cable, labourers could command £1000/week for pulling cable! And pulling cable is literally what happens. A trench is dug, a metal trough buried inside, and cable is pulled through the trough to the endpoint. But as costs mounted and consumer take-up was slow – especially in the face of cheap competition from Sky – some cable companies went under. The industry consolidated, and by the late 90’s we were left with a handful. As an aside, although cable TV was introduced, cable network access was way way way behind. I remember Telecentials trial being delayed when they were absorbed by Nynex, and then again when Nynex was absorbed by NTL. Each company was doing something different to the other, and the previous trials were worthless – as the acquiring company was not going to abandon it’s own investment. About this time, the turn of the millennium, a few oddities appeared. It had became obvious that some of the cable gangs had pulled a fast one; the cable laid was low-grade coax, not the specified high-grade. Connections had not been made. And in some cases, the gangs were claiming they had cabled an entire street, and hadn’t actually done anything! “Coax?” you say? “I thought this was about fibre?” Yes, coax. At the time, fibre optic cable was hideously expensive. Copper coaxial cable offered the best trade off between price and performance. So coax was used. So back to the costs of upgrading the nation.
The major cost involved in any cable lay is the cost of digging the trench, i.e. digging up a road or field, laying cable trunk, and filling it back in again. The cost of the wire is negligible; fibre costs have fallen dramatically since the 90’s. But the cost per meter is horrendous. As high as £1000/meter…
That’s understandable for re-wiring. But what about new developments? And this is where the Government is not supporting its own, publicly stated aim.
I’m not talking subsidies. I’m talking planning permission.
When a developer submits proposals for a new residential estate, commercial development, industrial site, business park – anything! – by law it the developer has to include basic utility connectivity; ie electricity, gas, water, and sewerage. When laying the access roads and building foundations, utility services are laid as part of the build.
How expensive would it be to lay network cabling – fibre – at the same time, in the same trenches used to carry electricity and gas runs? Negligible. The cost would be constrained to the cost of the media, and perhaps additional trunk runs.
The cost per metre? As low as £10/m for fibre. Which telco or carrier would not jump at the opportunity to wire up a new residential home or business area, with a captive market? Yes, deregulation means they would have to offer service via other carriers or teleco’s, but that still represents a revenue stream as the alternate suppliers would have to rent capacity or transit from the incumbent. Even a cash-strapped carrier could put together a good ROI forecast and gain external debt funding to lay the initial fiber. And this fiber could go to each and every building. Suddenly, the cost of the last mile becomes a non issue. So why does it not happen? Because although the government publicly places a high importance on becoming a wired nation, it does very little to promote and actively support the concept. All that is required is a law change. A change to planning laws such that all new developments must include fiber connectivity to each building, in the same way that current laws proscribe the connecting of water, gas, electrickery and sewerage. About three years ago, I was sat on the Chamber of Commerce and was privy to details of a major new commercial development. I asked the County Planning Officer why the plans did not include network connectivity? Why, given the County and Borough councils’ aims of improving ICT, did they not stipulate such connectivity? There was no real answer. The major cost saving is obvious, but there are other savings to be made. Tecos could reduce the time spent drafting and submitting applications for planning permission to dig up newly laid roads; council officers would only need examine one set of plans, not two – or more. Residential and business users would benefit from greatly reduced wait times for service. And high-speed network access would gain a boon. And for the telcos, the cost savings can offset the redevelopment of other ‘legacy copper’ networks. What can we do? Write to your local councilors. Browse your local paper for council planning permission notices (a legal requirement), head down to your municipal buildings, and ask to see the proposed development plans – it is your right to do so. Write to the planning officers asking why the 5th utility service is not included on the submissions. Write to them asking why do they not do more – at very little cost – to include such a service. Attend the public meetings required by law and make this view known. Write to your local MP and ask why the Government does not make a simple change to bring such requirement into effect. Ask them to sponsor it – its hardly a major effort, and unlikely to be contested in either Commons or the Lords! Whilst it will not benefit most of us now, it benefits us all later. The telcos cannot afford to rewire Britain, the Government couldn’t subsidise it, but as a nation we need it. Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. |
Written by Guest on 2006-04-01 23:06:05
Comments invited!
|
|
;)