Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane  (Read 2696 times)

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31911
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
"The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« on: November 02, 2013, 01:52:13 AM »

Admin note this topic is split in response to this post so as not to distract from the OPs problem


Very sadly it is becoming increasingly obvious that that the UK is investing vast subsidies in "The wrong technology" (Peter Cochrane in the Newsnight article in August 2013 and his HoL evidence in Spring of 2012).

Whilst the majority with shorter length lines in urban areas can survive with VDSL those, as in this case with a D side line length of around 1.3 km are being left to fester on rotting under-maintained infrastructure. The situation is exacerbated by the ever-increasing number of inappropriate FTTCs all requiring more attention that the workforce can possibly deal with, including subcontractor installs without test equipment. It is particularly galling for Ewhurstians as you will probably remember BT were allowed, almost unquestionably with the cooperation of Surrey CC, DCMS, Ofcom and politicians of all persuasions at all levels, to destroy our RDPE grant-approved project where we had recognised the inadequate infrastructure. We had specified a brand new full fibre backbone running throughout the village immediately available to extend with FTTH. Instead with three BT FTTCs, quite inappropriate for any fibre distribution solution and each with only three spare fibres in one tube and a further empty tube that might be coaxed to accommodate a 12 fibre bundle, we are quite literally at a dead end. Fibre on demand and claims of jam tomorrow by working on other solutions just won't wash; just as they haven't with Margaret Hodge's PAC. See attached letter to which we have naturally replied that improving the efficiency of BDUK etc. is unlikely to influence the Laws of Physics.

Kind regards,
Walter




I do hope its sorted soon and that service is restored asap

Quote
UK is investing vast subsidies in "The wrong technology" (Peter Cochrane in the Newsnight article in August 2013 and his HoL evidence in Spring of 2012).

Another subject, but since Peter Cochrane's business & how he makes his is as a consultant in FTTP, then of course he's going to say that.
All fine and dandy for him recommending it for Jersey where the gov stumped up something like 20million to subsidise that tiny island which is only about 9miles x5miles.  iirc JT is the sole provider and they are stumping up the other 20m. 

Whilst Id love to see FTTP everywhere, the UK has a lot more rural areas.  Crikey Blackpool & Fylde is bigger than Jersey!   Ive no idea how much it would cost to fund FTTP nationwide.  I saw estimates years ago at something like 18 billion to cover just 80% of the UK - and we all know which 80% that will be.  Who is going to fund the 18 billion..  and would it be at the expense of the NHS and other much needed services :(...  and what about the other 20% which is likely to be the expensive portion.

We're stuck and I cant see any other solution atm. 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 12:24:23 PM by kitz »
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

waltergmw

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2765
Re: Re: Repeat fault interesting observations
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2013, 09:00:32 AM »

@ Kitz,

Sorry for starting another topic within this one. Perhaps you'd like to split if off for me please ?

I agree there's no easy solution as otherwise others such as B4RN would have started it in a more widespread solution than those that e.g. Gigaclear are involved with.

IMHO what is clear is that a fundamental rationalisation of the near-monopolistic mess is initiated very soon.
Whilst is is not unreasonable for a commercial operation to strive to make the maximum profit, it must not be at the expense of so much of the UK's industry as well as private individuals.
Any such moves must surely start with a sea change within all public service entities involved and a far less cosy relationship than exists with all the subsidised contracts ending up with the incumbent.
That in turn should influence those within whichever government is in power.
I find it quite bizarre that the HS2 project seems to continue involving probably far greater investment to serve a tiny minority of the UK and at the expense of smaller but still vital rail improvements elsewhere. If that is so, it must be possible to exert sufficient influence over the communications industry (which should possibly also include Virgin Media).

Kind regards,
Walter
Logged

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4941
Re: Re: Repeat fault interesting observations
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2013, 09:44:18 AM »

For what it's worth, I agree with you on the HS2 debate, Walter. But, this "fundamental rationalisation" you would like initiated, regarding fibre broadband roll-out ?? I'd be seriously interested to know what the alternatives are ??

Kitz has outlined perfectly well in her last post, what Mr Cochrane's model is based on. A tiny island floating in the English Channel.
It is not, nor never will be, a commercially viable enterprise, to provide FTTP (and in some cases FTTC) to some of the far-reaching areas (From Exchange/PCP to EU), of the UK. Of course, this is going to impact on some individuals, but they are an extremely small percentage compared to the bigger picture. That, I'm afraid is business. It's not nice or friendly, but it's not supposed to be. One of our latest 'briefs' from management, states that we have now 'passed' 17 million homes with our FTTC project. That's a lot of potentially happy EU's.

We've debated BDUK till it's almost dead in the water. In essence, anybody at all was invited to tender for the contracts, each and every time there was only one bid left standing ..... BTOR ......  the rest sloped off with their tails between their legs, as the 'numbers' were to reveal a significant cash injection would be required by the bid-winners, with no return on their investment for an estimated 20yrs !!.

In short, to achieve FTTP across the UK, as KITZ has pointed out, it would need funding quite heavily from government coffers. Again, as KITZ has mentioned, at what expense ??.

I do admire your tenacity, Walter, you know that anyway. But, I don't think the agenda is as high up on others lists, as perhaps your good-self and the very low percentages that make up rural Britain ?? Harsh ..... yes. But, reality states that there isn't any other alternative for the foreseeable future, other than projects like B4RN, for our country cousins. :no: :) 
Logged

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31911
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2013, 01:46:40 PM »

B4RN is very fortunate in that it has the services & expertise of someone like Barry Forde whose background expertise on JANET and the CLEO network makes him in an ideal position to be able to carry this out.   I doubt that theres many more in the country that could provide this level of technological experience... and provide it for free.
iirc theres also  several other members that live in that area that have academic and IT & Network experience at a high level.

Between them they have a unique set of skills that most rural areas could not begin to dream of.  Perhaps its Quernmores close location to Lancaster University (appx 5 miles) that also helps.   Lancaster Uni has an excellent reputation when it comes to IT and because it is so close to so many rural areas, its always been at the cutting edge of providing internet access for the surrounding LEOs. 

Even back in the late 90's & turn of the century their microwave links to LEOs were the envy of many other academic institutes.  Heck its one of the reasons why I used to do an extra hour or so round trip when doing a degree module in IT Communications.  B4RN has a real coup in that their chief exec is the same person who headed & was responsible for the very impressive academic network which spanned cumbria and the more rural parts of north lancs.

The fact that B4RN has such unique mix and that the community devotes time for free and even landowners have given rights for free that other businesses would have to pay for puts them in a situation whereby I feel that they have a good chance of success.  That said even their funding has had sticky moments and its still taking a long time to roll out.   

----

Whilst I would have liked to have seen other companies other than BT attempt to enter the mix..  the more rational side of me believes that it needs someone as big as BT to carry it off.  IMHO  BDUK was a total farce and a waste of public funds.

There were plenty more that could have got involved if they wanted, but at the end of the day its just too risky.  BT has the advantage where the less profitable areas can be offset by the more profitable ones. 
Why doesnt Virgin get more involved?  Branson isnt averse to taking business risks if he thinks the long term profit is viable.   But cable has already been installed where it is viable.. and even then many of those founding cable companies went to the wall and its how Branson was able to scoop them up so cheaply.   

The fact that fibre is so costly and whilst grants are given to help with set-up costs, its the afterwards running costs that also have to be factored. 

Digital Region is a classic example.  I cant recall how many millions of pounds from the public purse they were given.. it covers areas that I wouldn't class as rural - heck Sheffield central & Attercliffe etc.   With hindsight wouldnt it have been so much better if BT had just got on with it. 
I have absolutely no doubt that BT would have installed FTTC in those areas by now, but instead theres many people like UB not knowing what is going on with their connection.    :/


There's 2 reasons why I take Peter Cochranes "wrong technology" which a pinch of salt.
1) His natural bias towards FTTH because that is his business - promoting and marketing FTTH.  He got paid a huge chuck of money from Jersey.
2) The most important one.  I just dont see how in the UK it can be practically funded.   
Perhaps some time in the future when costs decrease who knows..  but at least BT will have a head start in that Fibre already laid to the cabs wont go to waste, perhaps when BT have got some of their FTTC investment back it could be extended to FTTdp.

Im not anti-FTTH in the slightest - Id love it to be rolled out..  but in the present climate I dont see how it could be funded. :(
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

JGO

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 727
Re: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2013, 05:27:28 PM »

Another "Wrong Technology" is a body when the food pipe crosses the wind pipe. We are stuck with it and used to thumping someone on the back if something "goes down the wrong way"  !
 
Untli such time as we do all have FFTP (perhaps by replacing the VDSL section in  FFTC installations ?), we are stuck with this too  but I think we could make more of what we have. I have several times been told " You are getting a very good speed !". It doesn't exceed what can be reasonably estimated from the line parameters BUT I have learned what might go wrong and done my best to improve it. Apparently someone in the next street is stuck at my starting point, about 50%.

It seems to me that there is a need for a new job of "Broadband Improver" getting optimum performance and proper AV and Child protection software installed.

 
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5658
Re: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2013, 11:52:41 PM »

FTTP is better, but the FTTC isnt a complete waste as the FTTC rollout has laid out a starting point for groundwork on FTTP, so future FTTP installs dont now need fiber from the exchange, they only need from the aggregation point.  Thats why all FTTC areas have FTTPoD availability.
Logged
Sky Fiber Pro - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab - LINE STATISTICS CLICK HERE

GigabitEthernet

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2013, 11:58:13 PM »

I think one of the major problems, as has been mentioned, is a lack of competition. The Government constantly favour BT! Companies such as Virgin Media, with technically superior products have no reason to expand because the  Government won't look at them.

I find it funny that a so-called 'private' company is assisted so much by the Government. I thought that was why BT was privatised in the first place: competition and an end to the PO's monopoly? Still seems like a monopoly to me...
Logged

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4941
Re: "The wrong technology" - Peter Cochrane
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2013, 11:39:29 AM »

If you think the real reason Thatcher sold off the silver, was for the benefit of end-users by way of creating competition, then you are a very trusting individual, Alec.  :)

How are BT "assisted" by the Government ?? If you mean BDUK, it's been debated a thousand times over. ANYBODY that wanted to, could tender for the contracts, that includes Virgin Media. NOBODY but BT was left, when it came down to the cold, harsh reality of massive funding having to be injected into the programme by the winning contractor, with no return on their cash for decades.

By simply privatising an industry, especially a bespoke one like ours, does not mean there are swathes of competition out there itching at the bit to get involved. It simply means that the company now needs to show continued profits for their shareholders.
Logged