We may be beginning to see the early preparation for this as existing ISPs move further into content delivery (and control) as content organisations begin to explore infrastructure (Kansas, etc).

For this to happen its likely to require some significant shifts in the structure of markets as they get closer – content and infrastructure.

Exciting times!

Arguably, having left the deployment of fibre as late as we have here in the UK, despite advice to the contrary from Peter Cochrane when he was CTO of BT, the incumbent has failed due to shareholder feeding from the monopoly trough. Owning infrastructure, and operating it, doesn’t necessarily need to be the same organisation. In order to get fibre out there, I would suggest DIY is commercially far more sensible than waiting for the market to do it. Suggesting “moral responsibility” for the delivery of 999 services should be a ‘check and balance’ for DIYers unfairly assumes that communities taking on a FTTH build aren’t able to understand this and build appropriately, and outsource that responsibility if required. How much do we know today about BT’s 999 service quality? Are they really going to do it better than local communities in all cases? Difficult to answer.

it seems daft to me, that BT will concentrate on providing fibre broadband to the same places that Virgin also delivers theirs. One has to wonder, what takeup BT actually see in these locations. I know for a fact, that if BT concentrated on getting FO out to the rural locations, where there is no alternative, they would probably see a greater return on their investment, over time!

Tony

I disagree with your point that that case for new companies building new networks doesn’t exist. The evidence from Europe and US is that is does, and it is beginning to appear in the UK as well. That doesn’t mean they will dominate the market or that there won’t be casualties along the way but it most certainly exists.

The cost of providing a new network for those with slow or new speeds means the numbers do not work for a new company, unfortunately. Not helped by Sky providing TV and

The existing customer base of ISPs is key, they can be upgraded to faster services en masse providing the ISPs have wholesale access on terms (commercial and technical) they can live with.

Not sure about bundling. It’s been key to FTTH elsewhere but takeup of CATV isn’t great here and Freeview and Freesat provide a large chunk of what the 13m non-Sky households want for free.

I can see that actively bundling and promoting voice and TV services could work, but I think passively suggesting “it’s all out there on the internet – go find it” will flop.

The TV services about to come onto South Yorks Digital Region may provide a case study.

Many in urban areas aren’t interested in going faster, the connection they have is adequate for their needs. That is why all the noise is about ‘homes passed’ not homes connected. Most of the urban people could already have virgin ’100meg’ but they don’t see why they should if what they have works. Many don’t stream or videoconference, but all this is going to change. They just don’t realise the potential yet.

I think for new networks they should concentrate on helping the people who are desperate for an affordable, reliable connection. It will be a while before they make money, but a good network would sell itself. By the same token a poor network will not. Getting a USC of 2 meg to a rural business using public money and bonding copper pairs will not inspire others to take a service and many will still remain analogue. Get a fibre to them and they will soon spread the word amongst the neighbours. Whether its 30 meg, 100 meg or a gig, as long as its symmetrical, never drops out and delivers what it says on the box at an affordable price the network will soon grow, move into profit and start to encroach on the urban fringes stuck on the edges of copper. This will have a dual effect, not only will the customers have choice, real choice, but it will make incumbents up their game and start to deliver what they have promised the government. The days of ‘up to’ will be numbered…

Also alternative networks have the support of their communities, and if they are cooperatives they also keep the money local, and people have a pride in ownership and look after their asset. Help and support is local too, building a network of people, not just machines. I think local authorities should welcome initiatives from the grassroots and not try to force them all down the same route, there is no innovation in that, and if every county insists on handing all the bduk money to the incumbent then the whole job will be to do again in a few years, as all we will have done is made an old phone network go a bit faster. We need a modern network to keep up with the rest of the world, and the only way to do it is with fibre, with a proper wifi cloud over the country (not like btfon) and plenty of our own data centres. We could do it. But will we?

chris

They do exist, and not in just the new in take. They just need the platform to make a difference.

Until we break the monopoly which is throttling innovation and get some affordable backhaul into the rural areas we can’t build open access networks or any networks. The only way is economy of scale, and not many areas will work together at this moment in time, as they are all waiting for government help. Once people realise they are stuck on the wrong side of a digital divide they will start to work together. Like b4rn has.

As I pointed out to you, the data-book to support a bid to the RCBF contains little you wouldn’t need to complete a business plan should you be asking for funding from private sources; I see no reason why public bodies wouldn’t want to know that you have proof of demand, have a basic understand of your broadband landscape, your potential competition, and the offering you plan. If you think this is to challenging, perhaps you’d like to try a private equity house and see if they ask for less.

Also as pointed out to you, local authorities, including yours, have been willing to help communities to complete the application process, and in some cases have been willing to offer grants to help fund the process – don’t think the average private equity house does that.