Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The world moves on

Options
  • 26-01-2009 11:20am
    #1
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭


    FTTx subscriptions to reach 145 mln by 2013 - study Friday 23 January


    Despite economic problems, operators will continue to build new networks and the number of global FTTx subscriptions are expected to almost triple between 2008-2013, according to a report by Informa Telecoms and Media. Informa estimates that there were 49 million global FTTH, FTTB and VDSL subscriptions in 2008, which represents 11.6 percent of all fixed-line subscriptions. The majority of FTTx subscriptions are in Asia Pacific. Pioneering fibre nations Japan and Korea have 13.4 million and 7.0 million FTTx subscriptions respectively. China has the greatest number of FTTx subscriptions. Chinese operators have been aggressively upgrading their networks to fibre, with 16.6 million FTTx subscriptions in the country. Informa predicts that there will be 145 million subscriptions under one in five of all global broadband subscriptions by 2013. Much of this growth will be fuelled by Europe and North America. Central and Eastern Europe will have 10.6 million subscriptions by 2013, representing 13.2 percent of all subscriptions. AT&T and Verizon will roll out 24 million FTTx subscriptions in North America in 2013, making up 22 percent of the total market. Informa predicts that VDSL will make up only 8.6 percent of all FTTx subscriptions in 2013. Operators in Central and Eastern Europe are taking advantage of a high proportion of multi dwelling units and a lax regulatory regime to roll out FTTB in the region. The big concern for most operators is how they will profit from the rollouts. With a few exceptions, most operators with advanced FTTx rollout plans have not made money from their new networks. Some will try and charge more for FTTx but others, including Fastweb of Italy, France-based Free and Sweden's Bredbandsbolaget are charging the same or even less for their premium services, according to the researchers.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    bealtine wrote: »
    FTTx subscriptions to reach 145 mln by 2013 - study Friday 23 January


    And we get 3G ?


  • Options
    #3
    thefinalstage
    Registered Users Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭thefinalstage


    bealtine wrote: »
    And we get 3G ?

    You were not really paying attention were you? You queried your own post :p


  • Options
    #4
    mumhaabu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,031 ✭✭✭mumhaabu


    bealtine wrote: »
    And we get 3G ?
    Ferraris and Jackasses my friends and unfortunately Eamon Ryan is the jackass this time.


  • Options
    #5
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    I think the legitimate problem raised in the article is how are they going to see a return on investment?

    Oh well, luckily (I guess) if they do go under, they will leave a great network for someone else to pick up unlike here.


  • Options
    #6
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    thebman wrote: »
    I think the legitimate problem raised in the article is how are they going to see a return on investment?

    Yes it's a problem but what is the alternative?
    FWA?
    HSPA?
    (I cant see HSPA as anything except wishful thinking)

    If there is no investment in FTTx then there can be no customer growth.
    Phone lines are not for calling auntie mary any more really they are now "service delivery" and if you aren't delivering the services you die...

    So the alternative strategy is to leave the copper to rot in the ground and offer 1990's service levels? Oh wait that's exactly what is happening here already...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    bealtine wrote: »
    Yes it's a problem but what is the alternative?
    FWA?
    HSPA?
    (I cant see HSPA as anything except wishful thinking)

    If there is no investment in FTTx then there can be no customer growth.
    Phone lines are not for calling auntie mary any more really they are now "service delivery" and if you aren't delivering the services you die...

    So the alternative strategy is to leave the copper to rot in the ground and offer 1990's service levels? Oh wait that's exactly what is happening here already...

    I don't think there is an alternative to rolling out a decent network but I don't think it is feasible for the private sector to do this.

    Which leaves only one option IMO.


  • Options
    #8
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    thebman wrote: »
    I don't think there is an alternative to rolling out a decent network but I don't think it is feasible for the private sector to do this.

    Why not? Isn't the market king? Wasn't the market supposed to fix all our problems with state run organizations? Wasn't the market supposed to deliver progressively cheaper services? Weren't we all going to be living in stock fuelled orgies of wealth?

    The first sign of a shock and the "market" legs it for the hills and throws everything back to the government. Take the cash and run for it...

    The EU itself is infused with this nonsense.

    The "market" has been an abject failure, especially in Ireland. The promises of Thomas Friedman et al have been shown to be fallacies and fantasies. I've been muttering darkly into my beer for years about this and have been called a Luddite for my intense dislike of these theories [I don't drink]. The global liberalisation of markets has actually progressively made pricing much worse.
    This was an inevitability...
    This is a discussion for another day:)


  • Options
    #9
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    bealtine wrote: »
    Why not? Isn't the market king? Wasn't the market supposed to fix all our problems with state run organizations? Wasn't the market supposed to deliver progressively cheaper services? Weren't we all going to be living in stock fuelled orgies of wealth?

    The first sign of a shock and the "market" legs it for the hills and throws everything back to the government. Take the cash and run for it...

    The EU itself is infused with this nonsense.

    The "market" has been an abject failure, especially in Ireland. The promises of Thomas Friedman et al have been shown to be fallacies and fantasies. I've been muttering darkly into my beer for years about this and have been called a Luddite for my intense dislike of these theories [I don't drink]. The global liberalisation of markets has actually progressively made pricing much worse.
    This was an inevitability...
    This is a discussion for another day:)

    Well I think that the market can work in certain areas and can be somewhat successful in telecoms.

    It can't do a full nationwide network roll out. The problem with the free market in Ireland is that our market is too small and there is enough competition. The Free market can't work here without proper regulation in which case it isn't free. Up to now, we've just had toothless regulation which meant the market was free to do as it pleased and look where it has gotten us in a number of areas!

    Our banks are bankrupt and our BB is one of the most expensive for one of the worst services. I'm sure people will say the free market works and we just did it wrong but I find that hard to believe.


  • Options
    #10
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    thebman wrote: »

    It can't do a full nationwide network roll out. The problem with the free market in Ireland is that our market is too small and there is enough competition.

    That's just excuse du jour, if it's not houses too far apart it's the landscape being too difficult blah blah.
    I for one am sicking of hearing this nonsense.

    Countries with far larger land areas and more sparsely populated regions can manage to roll out fibre to every home in their country.
    Here we are a relatively tiny place and yet we can't manage even a basic infrastructure. Cheap, cheap, cheap is the mantra here...

    Let's examine harsher terrains and see what THEY can do, if they can do we can do it too, all it takes is will power, not excuses.


  • Options
    #11
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    It's no more expensive to put in fibre than twisted pair copper. You don't even need to dig up the road in many cases, use the copper multipair to pull it in.

    Even at 20km fibre can do over 2Gbps.

    Very approximately for copper pair, depending on numbers of pairs per cable, quality etc:
    200m = 20Mbps 100Mbps
    1km = 5Mbps to 20Mbps
    2km = 2Mbps to 15Mbps
    4km = 1Mbps to 5Mbps
    8km = 0.5kbps to 1Mbps

    Above 5km good likelyhood of nothing.

    Copper pair line failure rates are virtually secret as eircom is not a public infrastructure and such information is commercially sensitive. Fibre either works perfectly or is replaced.

    The sell off was due to Americanisation of EU comercial philosphy. Badly run state infrastructure is bad. But asset stripped, multiply bought out by levearge is worse. The €4.6Billion eircom debt is not because of losses or investment. But only the result of buyouts and asset stripping.

    It's possible EU policies may change now, but such things started in Europe with Thatcher and the EU never made UK do anything they didn't want to do. Our Governments liked the policies too as the sell-offs raise money in short term and mean in longer term it is not their responsibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    I know about eircoms failures and government failures in the area. At the end of the day, eircom haven't invested in their network, they don't want to because they can make a lot of money off the monopoly they have and the decaying network they inherited from the public.


  • Options
    #13
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    thebman wrote: »
    I know about eircoms failures and government failures in the area. At the end of the day, eircom haven't invested in their network, they don't want to because they can make a lot of money off the monopoly they have and the decaying network they inherited from the public.

    That'd be my impression too.


Advertisement