Broadband News

Fibre reaches further into Europe with nearly 2 million subscribers

The total number of fibre to the home (FTTH) connections in Europe is nearing two million which has helped penetration of Fibre worldwide to nearly double over the last 18 months, according to statistics from the FTTH Council. There are now 20 countries where more than 1% of households are connected directly to high speed fibre networks, up from 14 in July 2008 and 11 in July 2007. The six additional countries are all in Europe and are Andorra, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, and Latvia. The penetration stats can be seen below:

Interesting is the breakdown between fibre to the home (FTTH) and fibre to the building (FTTB). In the case of FTTB, fibre is generally laid to the building which is then served by a local network which delivers service to subscribers using Ethernet. South Korea has around 12% FTTH whilst the remainding 32% of its fibre roll out is FTTB. This shows a contrast to areas like Norway and Slovenia where their roll out is largely FTTH, similar to what would be expected in the UK where a larger percentage of the population live in individual houses rather than flats or apartments.

Japan still tops the charts of the total number of fibre-connected homes with 13.2 million, followed by the United States at 6.05 million, and China at 5.96 million. In terms of penetration, South Korea have 44% of homes, Hong Kong 28%, Japan 27% and Taiwan 12%, making up the top 4. The UK does not feature as only limited roll outs of FTTH are occurring at the moment. Even BT's £1.5bn fibre rollout wouldn't be included in the statistics as this is a fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) technology similar to Virgin Media's Fibre/COAX hybrid cable network which it uses for its 50 meg broadband. Once projects such as Fibrecity in Bournemouth from H2O Network and Velocity1 in Wembley City start becoming more common, we may eventually creep our way into the statistics.

Comments

I take it the UK is too low to be graphed.

  • chrysalis
  • over 8 years ago

"I take it the UK is too low to be graphed." LOL, I agreed

  • rian
  • over 8 years ago

I take it the UK is too low to be graphed.

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

Yes well until we get out of the mindset that if any major operator dares to lay fibre to homes in areas cheaper to deploy they have to suddenly hit the highlands and the valleys..

http://www.broadbanduk.org/content/view/315/73/

2/3rds of UK cost = 10-12bn, other 3rd, 13-17bn.

  • Dixinormous
  • over 8 years ago

Fibre to the home, haha yeah keep dreaming...

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

yup, dont they know we have a recession???

They need to make a better graph, factoring in economic health, population size and density...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

It's talking about percentage of household penetration. So, population size doesn't play much. Economic health? As far as I know, south Korea, USA and Japan doesn't look good either.

  • rian
  • over 8 years ago

For FTTH to occur, Mr Murdoch's satellites need to meet with an accident. I did my best last week but missed! Now FTTC is a different matter, that should be a wortwhile stimulus package.

  • mikeblogs
  • over 8 years ago

Dixinormous indeed, we do have an obsession with broadband coverage at the moment.

  • chrysalis
  • over 8 years ago

Mr Murdoch is nothing to do with FTTH. It's his programming that is supplying the TV content on the Ebbsfleet FTTH trial.

Comnut - no excuse at all, we actually have high population density for nearly 70% of the UK (see above costs), and recession isn't ours alone.

  • Dixinormous
  • over 8 years ago

It costs alot less to install a sat dish then provide FTTH, if the consumer has to pay the cost either as a one off install or over time through rental which do you think they'll choose? You're only going to see FTTH deployment to new building sites where the Telco has a choice to either install new copper or new glass, the latter is a little more cost effective.

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

so we have no excuse not to spend large wads of money??? are you a banker with a nice big bonus to spend???

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

I though this was a BB forum, not TV???

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

If you are talking TV over Sat, then it is good for HDTV, but BB works out quite expensive, and when there is very heavy rain or snowfall, the service is cut off for the duration..

All other ways of getting TV or BB do not have this problem, as long as it is installed properly...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

We should be top of that graph and leading the way. This country is so slow on the uptake these days. Fibre is the end game especially for the UK who has no cheap labour to provide exports. We are now resigned to being a service country, and to keep doing that we have to have fibre and decent ICT deployed to everyone.

  • cyberdoyle
  • over 8 years ago

I blame BT for it, due to it sticking with its antiquated profiles & politics... Its so big it can just change the history books, but a lot were wondering why in late 80's it was ripping out all the fibre from new estates, and replacing with copper, saying it was 'incompatible'...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

In the 18th.century the Victorians got on with it; In the 20th. we were War'd into it; in the 21st. We are sleep walking into it. For goodness sake lets get on with it!

  • WharlesBarb
  • over 8 years ago

comnut: "so we have no excuse not to spend large wads of money??? are you a banker with a nice big bonus to spend???"

err, no. Are you an estate agent?

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

Sorry about my Freudian,I meant 1800's or 19th,but do let us stop bickering. Can we afford not to. What about some more graphics, pie charts, etc. showing how badly we are doing in the UK, particularly when we are dropping off the bottom of those you do show. 'Thinkbroadband' please take note.

  • WharlesBarb
  • over 8 years ago

Spectre_01: so answer the question, otherwise most will think you are a fatcat politician...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

WharlesBarb: more likely they still live in the 1950's, still using the same principles, not realizing there are now better ways of administration..

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

The problem about 'showing how badly we are doing' is that it is not easy to show this using economics, etc.. Even a few years ago when I checked for 'signs' of recession, UK was still one of the top economies by GDP... ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

There may be some other way to show it from that reference, but I suggest a better way may be go round and count the number of 'closed down & empty' premises (including those that have been turned into cheap flats or just used as a temporary 'pound shop'..) there are quite a few around...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

As for 'administration'... I recently had an argument about my council tax, and went there to sort it out.. I did not hear back until a week later, where they said it could not continue, due to a mistake or omission I made in the documents...
I went back, and told them the details...
Another week later, they sent me a red 'final reminder'.. another mistake,
Another week later, they sent me a statement, but the figures made no sense, at least they were going to pay me back! they said I should get it soon..
10 days later, I was going to phone them, but the money arrived!

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

Contrast this with private business..
when my mortgage interest changes, I get aletter the *next day*
when I had a problem, I got a letter, I phoned them, and either it was solved *straight away*, or they phoned me the same day, and credited any money straight to my account! this is how to keep your customers... :)

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

oops i thought this was a broadband forum, seem to have got the finance page by mistake.

  • ruskin0
  • over 8 years ago

:D yeah well it is whatever the nutters decide to change the topic to...

And no, its not a forum, only 'comments'... the proper one is here....
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

comnut: "Spectre_01: so answer the question, otherwise most will think you are a fatcat politician..."

I think you'll find that most simply don't care what your trying to get. Who do you think has the money - the government? They don't have two ***ts to rub together. The telco's? their struggeling to turn a profit right now so don't expect them to invest if there will be no clear return on that.

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

cont:

4 telco's in japan went bust providing their fibre network, much the same way our own Cable companies have struggled, been bought and sold over the years putting in their networks, its not a cheap venture.

  • Spectre_01
  • over 8 years ago

Spectre_01: er, check my first comment... I dunno about you, but I was wondering how they justify massive spending on something that less & less people will buy!!

I was wondering whether you were one of these managers who only see rich guys buying the stuff, blind to the poorer public...

And since this has broadened into TV, 'mikeblogs' said that Murdoch's SKY is the main reason for low cable TV use - unless they can undercut his prices...

and then you start babbling about spending lots of money on a sat install??

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

Sure, ** to the company** FTTH will be more, but to the customer, it will be a lot less, as the company will absorb this as part of the business risk in building a network..
Did you not know that SKY was running deeply in the red for years, and now is making back millions in profits??? certainly worth it I think...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

I think you will find BT has millions enough, to pay all it high-level managers.. To say nothing about the government and the 'lords' awarding themselves massive pay rises!!!

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

erm, the telco's ??? There is only one major one in UK!! and the second largest *independent* one is a fraction of its size...
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/maps/25/

all the rest do not use thier own lines..

if you say 'mobile' I say there are still more users of landlines than mobile phones...

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

AFAIK the USA had the same problem before it broke up all the telcos.. Now they have to compete hard for customers, so better service, no time for money wasting stuff..

And if they behave badly, make a bad investment, that loses... that is the harsh business world!!

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

I think dragon1945 knows - no mobile, only 2 good TV channels, no-one company wants to pay for cable, fibre, or even a TV mast!!

  • comnut
  • over 8 years ago

Post a comment

Login Register