Skip Navigation


FTTH not dampened by economic downturn
Tuesday 08 September 2009 12:36:58 by John Hunt

Over two million people in Europe are thought to have broadband provided by fibre to the home (FTTH) according to statistics from the FTTH Council Europe. Not to be confused with Virgin Media's "fibre optic broadband" which is a fibre and co-ax cable hybrid, fibre to the home provides a direct fibre from your premises to a local aggregation point, often in the nearest telephone exchange or a street-side cabinet and can provide speeds from 100meg. By 2012, the Council expects around 13 million people will have access to such services.

Sweden tops the list of European fibre nations with 10.9% of its broadband users connected via fibre. The UK doesn't feature as roll outs are limited to green field developments such as Ebbsfleet Valley, and H2O Networks who are in the process of deploying fibre to some cities around the UK via the sewer networks which will be used to connect homes to broadband. BT have some plans to deploy fibre, but this will be mainly to either street side cabinets using VDSL (FTTC) to connect homes or some limited fibre to the home roll outs to new developments.

  Country Fibre Percentage
1 Sweden 10.9%
2 Norway 10.2%
3 Slovenia 8.9%
4 Andorra 6.6%
5 Denmark 5.7%
6 Iceland 5.6%
7 Lithuania 3.3%
8 Netherlands 2.5%
9 Slovakia 2.5%
10 Finland 2.4%
Percentage of broadband connections provided by fibre

Over 233 projects are under way to provide fibre to homes across Europe with many sponsored by local governments or smaller companies. Rural areas such as those of the Nordic countries are often targets for fibre roll outs as traditional broadband cannot reach these areas and provide an acceptable level of service.

Comments

Posted by sloman over 7 years ago
i think by 2020 or 2025 the UK may have 10.9% FTTH but i would not be willing to bet more than £10 on it
Posted by cyberdoyle over 7 years ago
aye, the UK is definitely gonna be the slow lane... nobody will come here for our fantastic content, and our young innovators will move to areas of the world that promote development. Nobody will love a country still on copper. Time to roll out the fibre. Cheaper than copper. Just replace what is there and sell copper for scrap. Employ the unemployed, thus reducing dole queue. sorted. Gov can subsidise because it is gov and the people who get the immediate ROI.
Posted by AndrueC over 7 years ago
I notice that they haven't heeded my comment about '(mbps)' yet. I wouldn't be very impressed with a 100mbps connection. It'd be faster if my budgie went got the data :-/
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Well it didn't dampen FTTH here either on the positive side, we had so little before the downturn it didn't feature in the stats and no plans for any significant deployment, and continue to have none with no significant plans for deployment so we've held steady here too.

Go UK!
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Also worth bearing in mind that H2O have connected no-one to the internet via their fibre to homes.

They've connected 50 homes in Bournemouth to nothing and that's about the sum of their work that we're aware of.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
From the BBC website:

Karel Helsen, president of Europe's Fibre-To-The-Home Council, said

"No delay is very important," he said, "specifically if you talk about applications that are time dependent such as personal communications, conference calls or video calls where delays cause a lot of interference."

So now we know.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Cyberdoyle - People will move? Lmao, that kind of paranoia is the sort of thing people pay to see. Keep performing.

And no, deacent quality fibre is not "cheaper than copper", and it'a very very expensive to dig holes in the ground, mmkay?

Neither can you "employ the unemployed", digging holes is a specalist skill and construction companies are not overbusy right now.
Posted by Capn over 7 years ago
Anyone ever thought of getting the Army to do the work? They're getting paid anyway and their engineers are more than capable of putting cable in.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Have you seen the price of copper recently Dawn? It *is* more expensive to deploy than fibre, fact, end of.

Having you here is like having our very own BT PR representative though so please do troll on with your misinformation. I'm sure when BT do begin to deploy fibre you'll suddenly start singing its' praises, assuming you haven't died of old age.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
In other news you don't need to deploy whatever super brand new fibre is, it's FTTP not 160 16QAM wavelength WDM.
Posted by uniquename over 7 years ago
@AndrueC
"I wouldn't be very impressed with a 100mbps connection. It'd be faster if my budgie went got the data"

Pardon?
Posted by uniquename over 7 years ago
Oh dear - on about Mbps?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
I'm not "pro BT", Dixi, I'm pro-universal rollouts. If another company wants to take up the mantle, I'd support them just as I support BT.

And doing the minimum in laying fibre is precisely the way to screw ourselves over for the future and precisely what we absolutely must not do.

The simple fact is, without government funding or inadequate existing infrastructure (see: Hull), there have not been FTTH rollouts, I've challenged you repeatedly to find them, and you haven't! (and yes, Verizon /does/ get tax breaks!)

Capn - And put the commercial firms out of business?
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
"our young innovators will move" - what, like people have all moved out of current notspots, not.

http://www.broadbanduk.org/content/view/343/ fibre + duct + dig = £38/metre

CW1128 cable and fibre cost same per metre - 65p
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
The majority of the costs involved are not the digging itself, even. Digging up roads is /expensive/, and requires long lead times. Heck, some local councils are denying all but essential works as a matter of policy.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Dawn if you were any further up BT's backside, well, it would be messy.

It's nonsense that you are pro-universal rollouts, you can't be pro-that while being anti-regulation unless you have split personality.

Once fibre is deployed replacing it is relatively painless.

I would also point out to you that your beloved BT have deployed GPON, not point to point, so for all your wittering about the 'minimum' that's exactly what BT have done in the few thousand homes they've deployed to thusfar!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
If you hated this country anymore, you'd be arrested for terrorism against it. Look, I can use hyperbole as well!

And being anti unecessary, unfunded regulation which has held broadband in this country back has zip, nada, zap to do with being pro-universal rollouts. /Funding/ might come with regulations, but that's not the same thing AT ALL.

And yea, that's why it's an experimental small scale rollout. Duh.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Right, because BT have never done tests with fibre before Ebbsfleet of course, are you that blind?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Because, of course, the previous tests answered all the questions. Wait, maybe they didn't, and maybe you're just being narrow minded and accusing other people of being blind.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
-
I've challenged you repeatedly to find them, and you haven't! (and yes, Verizon /does/ get tax breaks!)
-

No, they did get them, FiOS isn't receiving breaks on taxes, it is receiving certain franchise concessions.

Incidentally if we're talking tax breaks let's talk BT and business rates:

http://www.computerweekly.com/DowntimePDF/pdf/Caiopaper.doc
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Umm right.

Ebbsfleet was about OSS and bitstream access tests, nothing at all to do with the testing of the fibre technologies. BT in common with most other incumbents run with PON to avoid unbundling of pairs, simples.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Still claiming that FIOS dosn't get tax breaks? The other break there is your one with reality. And yes, they also get concessions - funding is funding, and the amount is the only significant factor.

And yea, wow, it makes up for a proportion of the money lost to LLU operators as having to work under-cost on their lines. It's not significant enough to make a difference, as you well know, and I certainly support a universal low (not zero, but low) rating on fibre, coupled with cost-plus LLU works.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 7 years ago
dunno why roads would have to be dug up, the ducts are already there. Just pull or blow fibre through them. Then use existing poles and overhead fibre to the homes. Job done. BT laying off staff, so obviously they have no intention of upgrading rural areas... despite what the digitalbritain report says. mobile is the fate of rural people. sucks.and I have evidence people are moving out of notspots. And like the brain drain the kids will go to countries where they can perform.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
In the vast majority of cases, there isn't capacity, sharing rules prevent BT (and only BT) from making agreements to get space in existing ducts, etc.

And if you have a soloution, an affordable soloution, to the overhead cavle weight issues, great - share a link, plz.

BT are laying off staff because this is a recession and they have a ever-growing mountain of rules sapping their commercial viability.

Evidence? Link.
People moving out the UK? Link

And I mean studies, not "oh my mother said".
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Ah you want evidence but can't supply any for your own assertions.

Where are these FiOS tax breaks?
Where are these LLU operators claiming that BT should be paid more for the service?
Where is this information on duct capacity lacking in the vast majority of cases?

Business rates inconsequential? 15GBP/km vs 500GBP/km for new investors? That's hundreds of millions a year.

BT make plenty from LLU, Openreach revenue being redirected elsewhere to avoid breaking the 8% earnings cap is plenty evidence enough.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
There are no sharing rules preventing BT from purchasing duct space from others - note Ofcom encouraging it: http://tinyurl.com/m72cdf

BT themselves have a solution to fibre being carried on existing poles. It's lighter than copper y'know!

So when you're done making excuses for BT that they don't even make themselves...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
There are no UK government rules, but thrre are /local/ government rules in many areas, Dixi.

And BT have a soloution, but check the price. Yea, whoops.

Get real, stop thinking there are cheap, easy soloutions.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Dixi - why would BT want to rent duct space from others?
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
a good proportion of trunk ducts are either full or blocked.

Basic problem with fibre to the home in the UK is that nobody can produce a business case for doing it. Most of the EU deployments have some TV connection involved to get the payback.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
herdwick, is that what the recent survey found? How do they connect businesses who want circuits?
Posted by Firewall over 7 years ago
Somerset, they dig up roads and put new ones in. Any appreciably sized link is always provided "subject to survey". Most of the ducts are as old as the copper in them and the ground is a surprisingly shifty place for a pipe.And where a duct's full, there are substantial risks to other services within it in removing a cable. Pulling a cable from a duct carries a high chance of "sawing" through another cable in there. Actually seen that happen at work. Not BT though, steel works numpties. This means it's not simply a case of pulling the copper out and shoving a fibre in. (cont.)
Posted by Firewall over 7 years ago
(cont.) Firstly you need to provision the fibre before you can pull the copper and to do that you need room in a pipe that you're not then going to want to draw from.And the cost of fibre is in the digging, terminating and termination equipment. Go and compare an RJ45 ethernet switch price to a fibre one. You can't just Krone a fibre into a clip. The material costs of fibre v copper are trivial numbers in the equation.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Firewall - are we talking here about cabinet to home, exchange to cabinet or exchange to exchange? Cabinet to home is surely the difficult and expensive part?
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
herdwick whats stopping having a tv connection on a uk fibre rollout, for example my area at present analogue VM tv services would hardly be competition (cost more than digital with way less channels and no itneractive services), sky isnt exactly hard to undercut and of course some people just dont want a dish on their house.
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
the 2nd basic problem with the uk as well in my view and perhaps a bigger problem than what you said is that the government dont want to get involved in the rollout like other governments have done. I think partially their love affair with the media industry may have something to do with it.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
chrysalis - What's stopping it is that BT cannot obtain a TV broadcast liscence. They're not allowed one.
Posted by Fixer109 over 7 years ago
To enforce Chrysalis point there is also the privately owned blocks of flats (and there are a lot of them) where the Management Company will not allow dishes to be installed or for VM to have access to the property. This gives a good case of TV services to be offered through Fibre.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
What's BT Vision then, Dawn?
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
For reference, BT was prevented from obtaining a TV broadcast license in 1984, but that was lifted in 2001 and it currently provides on demand TV (movies, sports, music, etc.) over broadband.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Being allowed to offer TV on demand is different from being allowed to offer a broadcast-equivalent product. Oh wait, THIS WEEK that was lifted along with the pricing restrictions...
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Sophistry, as usual, nothing more than I expected. BT was allowed to obtain a TV broadcast license in 2001, that is a cold, hard fact.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Fixer - if a management company won't allow VM why would they allow another company with 'fibre'.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
The technical bar was raised, but they were still not allowed to do the major revenue raising operation (TV broadcasting) until this week's change.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
BT Vision is not free, they charge per month plus on demand. You get TV through BT Vision. You get pay per movie/tv show. You get HD films and shows.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Yes, and?
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
So you're wrong, as usual.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Well, given your comment has nothing to do with BT Vision, which is legally a push service, and not broadcasting.

You're just an idiot, and in this case an idiot troll. You are once again accusing BT of major fraud, without any evidence they have done anything of the sort.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.