One-trick pony...?

I recently bemoaned the lack of original thought in BT’s opening contribution to the current DCMS consultation on the Communications Review – particularly the absence of any new ideas on the broadband investment challenge.  Re-reading BT's response, I’m similarly dismayed at the apparent complacency of the dominant operator’s technology assumptions.  For instance:

“We believe that the [Ofcom] WLA market review reached reasonable and pragmatic outcomes with the Openreach ’active’ VULA product seen as the main basis for scale NGA delivery and wholesale competition… The economics of passives are challenging compared to VULA but they do have a possible, complementary role to play outside BT’s footprint… We see wireless as a useful means to distribute superfast broadband on a localised basis, but because of the very high speeds and the required network capacity…we do not believe that wireless is an effective alternative means to deliver superfast broadband speeds over wide areas”.

Many would challenge this BT-centric view of the UK’s NGA development.  For example, Antony Walker, CEO of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, has said that: “There simply isn’t a one size fits all technology solution to deliver a truly ubiquitous next generation broadband Britain, we’ll need to use all of the technologies available.” 

Walker’s comments marked the publication of a new report for the BSG by Analysys Mason on ‘The costs and capabilities of wireless and satellite technologies’.  The report suggests that, contrary to BT’s assertion, ‘terrestrial wireless technologies are capable of delivering a quality of service sufficient to meet the growing demand for capacity from households and small businesses within the decade ahead and that they could provide more cost effective solutions than fibre for about 15% of UK homes. With more spectrum, terrestrial wireless could provide a cost effective alternative to fibre across much of the so called final third of households’.