[LINK] New opposition spokesperson for broadband

[Glen Turner]

Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> The UK research, that it could cost as much as 40 billion *pounds* to
> FTTH Britain, was sobering: the UK is smaller and denser, and that's
> supposed to be good for fibre economics ... so is the research
> off-the-wall, or is fibre far more expensive than we expect?

The economics are really unclear. Verizon is charging an installation
of US$70 with a minimum rental of US$40 per month.  That's US$550
for the one-year contract.  That implies a FTTH network for Australia
of about $5B.  That's obviously not right -- as i said, the costs
are unclear to anyone other than those who have spent the money to
scope such a network, which isn't something I've done.

NEC probably have the best informal notion, if you wanted to
ask them.

What I object to is:
  1. This notion that we want the most network we can get for
     $4.7B. Rather than asking what we need and what is reasonable
     for the future and working out how much that would cost.
  2. The lack of scoping studies of alternatives.  Especially as
     that would allow total cost of ownership to enter the picture
     and give a long-run investment plan.
  3. The use of tenders as an alternative to the government building
     its own scoping study and expertise.
  4. The rush.


-- 
  Glen Turner   <http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/>