House of Lords Inquiry Calls for UK to Deploy Robust Fibre Optic Broadband

bealtine

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/07/house-of-lords-inquiry-calls-for-uk-to-deploy-robust-fibre-optic-broadband.html

Summary of the Committee’s Recommendations

* Ofcom should consider employing its Article 12 powers to oblige infrastructure owners to provide open access to dark fibre at the level of the cabinet, and active and passive access, together with rights to install and collocate active equipment on relevant links at the level of the exchanges and other nodes.

* We urge the industry to work to ensure there is an organisation with the capacity to act as an intermediary between an array of separate network providers and larger-scale ISPs. We note that the existence and effectiveness of such an organisation would be vital to the success of an open access fibre-optic hub model. [the Committee is aware that INCA are already attempting to do this]

* The Government should consider, not least in light of the EU Commission’s current consultation and the issues this raises concerning open access to dark fibre as a condition of State Aid, what the implications might be for broadband policy of a new ‘house with a tail’ model emerging in which the property owner becomes responsible for the construction and maintenance of their own final drop.

* We recommend that consideration should be given over time by the Government, Ofcom and the industry as to when and under what conditions fibre switchover would be appropriate and what implications it would have. [This means that in the future a 'Digital Switchover' style move from the existing/old copper to new fibre optic infrastructure might become necessary]

* The Government should undertake a detailed costing of the Committee’s proposal, not least because it removes the final mile – the most expensive per capita component of the network – from the costs requiring public subsidy [See 'house with a tail' above]

* That the Government pay urgent attention to the way public funds are being distributed, particularly the operation of the Rural Community Broadband Fund

* The Government & industry should consider the long term possibility of switching terrestrial [TV] broadcast from spectrum to the internet [IPTV].

oscarBravo

bealtine wrote: »

* The Government & industry should consider the long term possibility of switching terrestrial [TV] broadcast from spectrum to the internet [IPTV].

I might be slightly amenable to this idea in a purely multicast environment, but doing it on a unicast basis is insanity.

bealtine

What about "on-demand" tv then?

oscarBravo

bealtine wrote: »

What about "on-demand" tv then?

Different set of challenges, being handled in various clever ways (such as Netflix distributing their CDN into the networks of bigger ISPs).

Think about the Olympics opening ceremony, watched by 27 million people in the UK, mostly on broadcast TV.

Now think about that HD stream being delivered as 27 million separate unicast streams, and what that would do to the IP network.

Like I said: get multicast working, and we can talk about switching off broadcast.

bealtine

Well yes multicast is the correct way to handle this:)

This idea brings up some questions and as far as I can see is way off in the distant future...what about the hapless ones still on dialup or those on crappy 3Mbs exchanges, most of them have no chance of getting an upgrade in the foreseeable future?

The only way this could be done reliably and with the same quality of broadcast is to fibre up the country and, if the DCENR have anything to do with it, that will never happen. So the multicast or unicast problem is moot:)

bealtine

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/31/lords-superfast-broadband-report-seriously?CMP=twt_fd

Lords' report on superfast broadband must be taken seriously
The government is not being bold enough in its internet strategy, and more must be done to give UK the network it needs

It will make uncomfortable reading for ministers, but the House of Lords report on the national strategy to speed up and extend Britain's broadband network should be taken very seriously.

If implemented, the practical suggestions it offers could unleash a wave of new money to help the many remote communities desperate to come online do so more quickly and in greater numbers than is likely under current plans.

Broadband for all – an alternative vision is the result of a six month inquiry by the Lords communications committee which took in evidence from regulators, technicians and companies ranging from BT to tiny community projects such as Great Asby Broadband in Cumbria.

And the conclusion is that the government is not being bold enough. The current target of getting speeds of 24Mbps to 90% of the country by 2015 or 2017 – the deadline date is unclear – may assure more bandwidth than most households need today.

But the rate at which the internet has evolved in the past, with demand doubling every year or two, suggests the average home will need two or three times that speed come 2020.

To deliver ever faster connections, the Lords committee has concluded that different technologies will be needed than the ones currently being paid for by the government and installed by BT. And it is worried about the final 10% of homes, the hardest to reach in the UK.

It is far from certain that the government will achieve its target of giving these rural locations a minimum of 2Mbps. And that minimum only just meets the needs of the average household today.

It will not be enough by 2015 for home workers, or for families raising teenagers doing their homework, watching video and calling friends on Skype.

The 2Mbps figure was chosen because it is the minimum needed to deliver internet TV, but that is already changing. TalkTalk's budget YouView internet TV service, launched towards the end of July, will require a minimum 3Mbps connection.

Despite an elaborate bidding process, which at one point involved nine separate companies, it currently looks as if only BT will emerge victorious in the competition to grab a share of the £530m of government funds earmarked for rural broadband.

Even with government help, BT is not guaranteed to reach everyone. An alternative is needed.

Under the current rules, communities can build their own broadband networks, but they have to hand ownership to BT if they want to be able to plug into its exchanges. This is obviously a major disincentive to private investment.

With the system of "fibre hubs" being proposed by the Lords, communities could build and own their own network, and plug them into BT's at a set price using standard technology. Under such a system, smaller companies could offer to build local networks around the country, creating economies of scale.

This would, of course, see BT lose its monopoly control of the connection from telephone exchange to household in many rural areas. Is this something ministers should worry about?

BT has promised to match every pound invested by the government with its own money, and spend £2.5bn rolling out fibre to the easiest to reach two thirds of the UK without subsidy. This is a big commitment, and one BT might pull back from if the competitive landscape changes.

BT is working fast. It has already upgraded 11m of the UK's 26m homes with fibre to the street cabinet. But under current plans, for years to come, much of its broadband network will still rely on old copper wires to carry the signal from the cabinet to the home.

Copper often fails in poor weather, leaving rural users without service for hours at a time. It also slows speeds down. And it cannot carry signals over a long distance, leaving remote homes relying on basic dial-up internet.

The reality is that we will eventually need to replace every copper wire with fibre, a process that one research firm says could cost as much as £30bn. BT cannot be expected to foot the bill alone, but this fact should not halt progress.

Other money needs to be found, and the fibre hubs proposed by the Lords communications committee are a pragmatic way of attracting new investment.

The government should respond to the committee's call for it to study the cost of building these hubs, and ask those companies receiving public money to build them.

The importance of the internet to the UK's economy cannot be understated. It already generates a greater proportion of GDP. The national broadband strategy should give the UK the network it needs