Analysys Mason advise against FTTH.

clohamon

Analysys Mason who advise DCENR, TIF, and Eircom have issued a briefing concerning their report on investment in FTTH.

“FTTH is often said to be ‘future-proof’, but the future appears to have veered off in a different direction – one in which wireless devices and services capture new consumer spend while take-up of NGA-based services is troublingly low.”

If you wish to purchase the full report, its yours for €5500.


It hasn't gone down well with FTTH supporters.

Finally, UK research firm Analysis Mason yesterday released a report urging service providers not to deploy FTTH anytime soon, arguing that take-up was low, service revenues not high enough and the bandwidth offered unnecessary. They also argue that wireless will capture most of the future spend, convienciently forgetting that traffoc offload is a crucial roadblock in the wireless path to prevalence. In other words, a classic case of 'don't plan ahead' and a condemnation of a technology with very little attention to the impact of execution on the poor metrics they cite. A statement I would be willing to back would be: "if you intend to do FTTH in a 'business as usual' way, don't bother..." Maybe Analysis Mason thinks that's a bit too subtle for most incumbents!

rob808

clohamon wrote: »

Analysys Mason who advise DCENR, TIF, and Eircom have issued a briefing concerning their report on investment in FTTH.



If you wish to purchase the full report, its yours for €5500.


It hasn't gone down well with FTTH supporters.

I dont think Ireland will ever have FTTH we be lucky to get FTTC. I also think investing in wireless is a waste of money since the speeds you get are pretty bad and also the pings are very high.

watty

I seriously begin to wonder if Mobile Wireless Vendors have shares in these guys.

The spectrum to give everyone even 10Mbps Broadband via wireless doesn't exist unless there is a Wireless base station in every street.

Or if they are part of the iPhad cult, how do they think Apple TV will work without FTTH.?

Have they been mesmerised by Intel's buy out of Infineon's Wireless to have GSM/3G/LTE tech?

Do these guys have ANYONE on staff that actually understands Mobile Wireless technology and performance issues or do they just analyse share prices?

However read the original press release
http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Press-releases/Telecoms-operators-should-reconsider-costly-plans-for-fibre-to-the-home-FTTH-and-focus-on-copper-based-technologies-says-Analysys-Mason/

It's true that operators (ISPs) don't want to make the mistake that 3G operators made. They dreamed of all kinds of services. There turned out to be only three:
Voice calls.
SMS.
Pipe for Data.

More here

bealtine

clohamon wrote: »

Analysys Mason who advise DCENR, TIF, and Eircom have issued a briefing concerning their report on investment in FTTH.

These guys are dangerous and deluded.

SeaSide

There is no demand

PogMoThoin

What a retarded statement

SeaSide

PogMoThoin wrote: »

What a retarded statement

I couldn't find the sarcasm smiley

PogMoThoin

SeaSide wrote: »

I couldn't find the sarcasm smiley

Sorry, not Yours, theirs

clohamon

http://informitv.com/news/2010/06/02/internetvideotraffic/

Internet video traffic to increase massively

2 June 2010
Global internet protocol traffic will increase by four times from 2009 to 2014. Cisco forecasts that the biggest single component of that will be internet video, overtaking peer-to-peer file sharing as the biggest single usage of bandwidth by the end of 2010. The combination of all forms of video will continue to exceed 90% of all global consumer internet traffic and by 2014 nearly half of it will be high-definition video.

Global internet video traffic will increase by 7 times over the same period, from 2.7 exabytes a month to 19.5 exabytes a month.

Internet video to the television display will grow from just over 0.1 exabyte a month in 2009 to over 4 exabytes a month in 2014, an increase of 38 times.

IPTV video-on-demand traffic will be 4 times greater, approaching 1.5 exabytes, while cable video-on-demand will rise by the same factor to 9.4 exabytes.




Video traffic delivered over the open internet will increase faster than video over managed networks. In 2009 the volumes were approximately evenly split. By 2014 only 30% of internet protocol video will be delivered via managed networks, with the rest delivered over the top.

In the United States, the volume of internet video data will continue to increase, but the rate of growth will slow, rising by 5 times over the period to 3.9 exabytes a month.

In the United Kingdom, internet video data will increase by 12 times, to over 1 exabyte a month, accounting for 37% of all internet traffic

An Exabyte is a million times larger than a terabyte and is equivalent to the data on around 250 million DVDs.

Cisco observes that the trends in internet traffic are being driven by video and social networking, which it terms visual networking.

The statistics are provided in an interactive online tool from Cisco, known as the Visual Networking Index Global Forecast. The model is derived from projections from a variety of well-known independent analyst firms, combined with traffic data obtained from service provider customers.

www.cisco.com
www.ciscovni.com

Yes they're Cisco's stats, but its hard to see how innovation in wireless technologies can outrun the increase in demand.

watty

Wireless Tech is near at the Shannon Limit.

Mobile Wireless can't deliver today's Broadband usage.

Fixed Wireless is x8 better capacity but limited in deployment.

thegills

What AM are saying is well known anyway. Why would an infrastructure provider spend billions on FTTH / FTTC if the consumer wont spend more than €30 a month regardless of bandwidth. The best a consumer can hope for is a high speed connection (wireless / copper / co-ax) with some form of contention.

rob808

thegills wrote: »

What AM are saying is well known anyway. Why would an infrastructure provider spend billions on FTTH / FTTC if the consumer wont spend more than €30 a month regardless of bandwidth. The best a consumer can hope for is a high speed connection (wireless / copper / co-ax) with some form of contention.

Yea but co -ax is ok because it can do fast speeds and wireless might be cheap but also very bad and copper can do us for maybe 5 years but after that Ireland would be so far behind and speeds be a joke but either way we stuck on copper and wireless for a long time to come when it crash which it will broadband providers will be saying we should had invested.

watty

They don't consider Fixed Wireless. It's Mobile they are Plumping up. Mobile only seems cheap right now because the 3G/HSPA is cross subsidized by voice by maybe over x100. SMS csts them nearly nothing.

See here for more realistic wireless costs http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056023902 which doesn't give real broadband.

thegills

Unless the Gvt. fork out €€€ or the consumer is willing to pay more that €30 pm we can forget about FTTH / FTTC. As neither of those is going to happen we might as well get used to what we have and hope that technology advances allow higher bandwidth speeds over the current medium.

watty

It can't

• Copper pairs are at the limit, reached about four years ago for short range VDSL2 and six years ago for longer range ADSL2+
• Copper Coax cable is about the limit. The DOCSIS 3.0 that UPC is deploying is four year old technology.
• On RF, OFDM/COFDM is as good as it gets (Within 2dB of Shannon Limits), first used four years ago with Flash-OFDM and now LTE and WiMax. DOCSIS over Wireless is older (about 8 years old) and 10% more capacity at pure Line Of Sight frequencies.
• RF needs lots of expensive base stations and Spectrum, It's much more expensive for medium capacity than Higher capacity Coax or Fibre

The privatisation and regulation of Finance was mismanaged. Eircom reached almost €4.8 Billion of Debt. Millions and Billions siphoned to the various "owners" and ESOP/ESOT, not invested in network. Half of eircom's totally artificial debt would pay for FTTH for 100% of people. Eircell sold and money into pockets of vultures and not Network. Debt increased artificially to point where nearly all eircom profit is repaying interest instead of investing in Network, forcing up line rental to highest in world. Just two years of eircom revenue would pay FTTH universally.

Even if the Government was to do it outside of Eircom and make it available at wholesale terms to all the ISPs it's a fraction of what has been wasted on Anglo Irish Bank or will be wasted on Metro North.

You know how much welfare subsidy eircom gets via phone lines?

It's a case of regulation and the commercial and Governmental will. Not cost or Technology.

RF is best for Mobility. You can't trail a coax, fibre or copper pair behind your car/bus/train.

Fibre to Cabinet/kerb used to be a lot cheaper than fibre to premises / home. Fibre used to be expensive.

It's now nearly as cheap to do Fibre to Home as to cabinet + VDSL2 copper.

Installing fibre from scratch is hardly different to coax or copper pairs. For more than 50% population use (coverage is NOT use) it's cheaper than Mobile. The claimed 90% mobile coverages are population, not geographic and assume a low erlangs, i.e. a small percentage of population connected at once.

Decent High performance Wireless Base is about €250K minimum. Using 120MHz + 120MHz single RAN LTE (8 times what any 3G operator has), that can support about 60 people with sustained simultaneous 1Mbps. With 1000 masts that would be 50:1 contention roughly.

To have 8Mbps (a minimum) you thus need 8000 masts = €3.2 Billion and 50:1 contention! That does not even factor the 1Gbps backhaul needed per mast to cope with the possible bursty peaks of 600Mbps of traffic even though a sector on average can only sustain about 8Mbps total.

For less than €2 Billion of Fibre you have 100% coverage of fibre with 20Mbps to 200Mbps (possibly 1000Mbps according to Verizon), between 10:1 and 1:1 contention.

No. Mobile Wireless is suited to short periods of "on the go" aka Mobile usage, at high Contention, with congestion low due to low per subscriber usage, not Home or Business fixed use with high per subscriber usage and low contention to ensure lack of congestion.

Why have we got the Mobile 3G/HSPA networks? High priced voice calls, that can be high price due to high eircom line rental, subsidizing Mobile Data at 100:1 or even 300:1. LTE to be viable at all has to be €40 to €80 a month with caps less than any mainstream broadband product. With no assurance of real broadband speed either.

paulm17781

It's shocking how companies with absolutely no technical knowledge get to do reports on important technical matters.