NEWS
UK web fans could miss out on the 'next big thing' on the internet if serious money isn't thrown at the nation's broadband infrastructure.
That's the warning from Ian Fogg, research director at JupiterResearch Europe, who was speaking during a Westminster eForum debate on the future of broadband Britain.
Without investment to improve broadband infrastructure - such as fibre to the home and fibre to the cabinet - Fogg said the danger is "the next big thing on the internet may not work in the UK".
The list from A to Z
Click on the links below to find out more...
A is for ADSL
B is for BT
C is for Cable & Wireless
D is for Dial-up
E is for Education
F is for Fibre
G is for Goonhilly
H is for HSDPA
I is for In-flight
J is for Janet
K is for Kingston
L is for Landlines
M is for Murdoch
N is for Next generation
O is for Ofcom
P is for Power lines
Q is for Quad-play
R is for Remote working
S is for Satellite phones
T is for Trains
U is for Unbundling
V is for VoIP
W is for WiMax
X is for Xbox
Y is for YouTube
Z is for Zombies
But, even so, he admitted the business case for fibre is "incredibly hard" as the market has seen a slide in the average price for broadband over the last few years and consumers don't see why they should pay more for fat pipe access.
All-IP next generation networks (NGNs) are being rolled out in the UK - such as BT's 21CN - but NGNs do not solve the problem of legacy copper wiring at street level, from exchanges to cabinets and homes - an issue known as next generation access (NGA). NGA is the fly in the ointment of faster broadband in the UK.
Anthony Walker, chief exec of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), told delegates the prospects for early investment in NGA are not good. But he said this is an issue that is likely to trouble small businesses before it annoys consumers - as SMEs might feel they are losing a competitive edge for accessing and competing in global markets where fibre deployments have - or may - outstrip the UK.
Consumer demand for upgrading the UK's broadband infrastructure is less clear cut, he said. This point was echoed by Ofcom exec Peter Phillips, partner, strategy and markets development, who said there is still "a lot of uncertainty" about how long current broadband networks will deliver what consumers need.
The speakers at the eForum touched on various applications - from videoconferencing to greater opportunities for homeworking to the rise of social networking and even the BBC's iPlayer - that might benefit from improved broadband infrastructure. But the general consensus was no 'killer app' for NGNs has yet to emerge.
JupiterResearch's Fogg said: "No one has yet identified that unique application that can only be delivered over next generation broadband."
Ofcom's Phillips added there may even be some advantage to the UK throttling back on broadband development - to see how things pan out in other countries and learn from their experience. The regulator is currently consulting on NGA.
The stance of the network operators was summed up by Andrew Lazarus, head of regulatory policy and strategy at BT, who said the company "does believe we can get a lot more out of copper".
He cited ADSL+ - coming next year, with top speeds of up to 24Mbps - and said speeds would still "satisfy a lot of apps". Issues such as broadband 'not spots' - areas not currently served by fat pipes - and headline speeds are "not necessarily part of the fibre debate", according to Lazarus.
He added: "We shouldn't minimise the disruptive potential to consumers of mass change to fibre."
When it comes to fibre investment operators have to take a much longer-term view, said Matt Yardley, principal consultant and head of broadband group at Analysys - something which he said they find "unpalatable".
Another speaker - Andrew Heaney, director of strategy and regulation at The Carphone Warehouse - suggested sharing the cost of investment in broadband infrastructure between various interest groups, such as private equity, consortia and infrastructure players, could be one way of driving broadband Britain forward.
There's also likely to be a role to play by government in terms of subsidies, according to various speakers, especially when it comes to ensuring next-gen services reach rural and less densely populated areas in order to avoid a new digital divide opening up.
The BSG's Walker added: "How worried should we be [about the future of broadband in the UK]? Not so worried that we make rash choices but worried enough that we do some hard thinking about next generation broadband."
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
'the business case for fibre is "incredibly hard"'
because BT own the "last mile" of copper between the exchange and the home user and BT have no incentive to replace this with nice, shiny and expensive fibre optic cable if OFCOM are going to force them to effectively give it away to alternate service providers once it's in place
2. Simon
Karen is right - who in their right mind would put in that sort of investment with the prospect looming of a mass clamour for "we want it cheap" and a regulator who cannot see the long term issues ?
By not taking a long term view, our regulator killed of the market for unbundled services all those years ago. I estimate that the push for ever lower prices put this country back by something like 5 years or more in terms of having a viable LLU market - in fact I think it could be argued that we've never actually recovered.
3. Iain Benger-Stevenson
Yet, the French are miles ahead of us with Freebox. Where is Virgin (was NTL) which has a fibre network, and should expand this? HD television is still yonks away, and it seems unlikely to be offered by Freeview. Perhaps the Government (is it?) ought to take a leading role in this, and bring the country up tpo date.
4. MadJim
Karen may be right, but not. in my opinion, for the reasons she states. Openreach, OR, operate on a cost plus basis. Ofcom does not insist that OR make no profit, they insist that they do not make excess profit and that they deal with all their customers, which now includes BT Wholesale, on an equal footing. What makes the justification for full fibre to the home provision difficult to justify is the sheer cost of deployment (not to mention disruption) which would have to be recovered over a period in excess of 15 to 20 years in a market where a 3 year horizon is considered ambitious. Looking back at 2000 - 2002, where there was initially massive investment in fibre core networks followed by massive market uncertainty and huge losses - it's not surprising todays operators prefer not to be caught with their financial pants around their ankles.
5. David Brunnen
Karen, in her comment on the business case for fibre, overlooks the solutions already evident in other parts of Europe - esp. in Swedem where 'Open Access' utilities abound.
We are all being short-changed by a lack of imagination and enterprise.
The BSG's excellent reports should be studied in depth - they include lots of examples of how we could make a better job of trying to make the UK broadband infrastructure 'fit for purpose'.