On the question of speed, Hunt is right to point out the
folly of setting an arbitrary target that is deemed to be ‘enough’ to meet
broadband demands: the latter are always likely to exceed current
expectations. However, he still fails
to address the HoL’s legitimate concern over universality. As the Select Committee put it: “what is important is the long term assurance that as new
internet applications emerge, everyone will be able to benefit, from
inhabitants of inner cities to the remotest areas of the UK.”
The ‘misunderstanding’ over FTTC is perhaps more
worrying. Hunt seems to justify the
choice of this technology as if it were a matter of government planning,
whereas the choice is entirely a matter for BT. Similarly, the idea that FTTC “is most likely to be a temporary stepping stone to fibre
to the home” and that “by 2016 fibre to the home will be available on demand to
over two thirds of the population” are again matters that are both entirely
dependent on BT’s commercial judgement.
(On current expectations, BT’s pricing of ‘FTTP on demand’ is likely to
make it too expensive for the residential market).
Hunt also fails to acknowledge
the HoL’s deeper concern with FTTC – and the PON network that BT is also
rolling out – that this architecture is unsuitable for physical unbundling, thus
stifling the prospects for service competition. The Committee’s fear is therefore that current broadband
investments, including government subsidies, will allow BT to recreate in fibre
the monopoly it gradually lost in its copper network. But hey, monopoly or not, it’ll be fast..!!
No comments:
Post a Comment