Article Info

Link: Light Reading – Report: UK FTTH Would Cost $50B

I call BS. There's no way it can cost this much. 20-25M UK households, aerial connections similar to East Coast USA but with higher density. Exactly why are they projecting costs higher than FiOS? It should be around $30B, and probably less.

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. They’re hoping to get some public money… so they’d better ask for money conservatively, just in case they get less.

    Posted by Carlos | September 11, 2008, 2:48 AM
  2. Agreed.

    Posted by Andrew Schmitt | September 12, 2008, 4:16 PM
  3. The why is politics and subsidies, and regulators who have no courage.

    On how they cooked the conclusions. Apparently no one read the actual report, where they made very clear the high totals made the following inappropriate assumptions:

    1) That they would do ftth to nearly 100%, as opposed to a much cheaper 70-90% of the homes. The last few percent in the boonies raise the number to something prohibitive.

    2) That even after fiber was in place, BT would maintain a very expensive network of copper. That alone covers about

    3) The number comes down about 10% if they are able to share existing ducts.

    4) A $15 backup battery was priced in at over $100.

    Actually, when you look at the actual work in the report, it’s probably the most accurate public accounting of GPON costs made public. Maybe a little high, but most projects come in a little high at the end.

    db

    Posted by Dave Burstein | September 15, 2008, 3:40 AM
  4. Dave – thanks for the details.

    You and I won’t agree on this but the 5% of folks who live so far away from everyone else (and in the UK the number is more like 1%) – well tough cookies. Want good broadband? Move or pay for it yourself…

    Posted by Andrew Schmitt | September 16, 2008, 1:09 PM