BT Rolls Out 20 Mbps, FTTH Danger Remains

BT is rolling out 20-Mbps broadband access services to about 40 percent of its network terminations, up from 8 Mbps possible before BT upgraded many of its Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers to the ADSL2+ standard.

Actual connection speeds people will see will vary based largely on the amount of metallic cable between their home and the telephone exchange, as always is the case for DSL. Speed increases will be most noticeble in the upstream direction.

Most BT retail customers connect at up to 448 kbps on the upstream when using ADSL, but this will double to up to 1 Mbps using ADSL2+. The new upgrades will be provided at no charge.

Faster speeds are possible if a further upgrade to VDSL is made, but that also would entail deploying much more fiber in the network.

And while BT faces criticism for not deploying fiber to the home, Fitch Ratings investment analysts say FTTH deployments are highly risky for European service providers facing cable operators. Fitch analysts estimate a telco FTTH upgrade in the U.K. market might cost BT about six times more money per connected home than it will cost cable operators to upgrade using DOCSIS 3.0.

The obvious risk there is financial return. In a competitive sales environment, BT likely could not charge six times more for its offering than a cable operator would. For that reason, Fitch analysts say fiber "to the curb," which costsly significantly less, will be the preferred upgrade strategy.

"FTTH is not commercially viable for much of the incumbents’ networks," though some greenfield builds will be feasible, Fitch Ratings argues.

The point is that Fitch believes wide FTTH deployments are highly risky for European telcos facing serious cable competition.

The broader point is that though fiber to the home likely is the "best" access technology in terms of bandwidth, it is highly financially risky, because the incremental revenue might not cover the incremental cost of the new facilities. It is one thing to mandate national broadband policies. It is quite another thing to require service providers to make investments that are demonstrably highly risky.

That said, there are financial risks either way. Underinvest and telcos are vulnerable to cable operators taking dangerous amounts of market share. Overinvest and a return is not assured.

All that said, actual facts on the ground are decisive. FTTH is more feasible where densities are high and where there is lots of aerial plant, compared to underground. The reason is that it is cheaper to rebuild aerial plant than underground plant. High density helps because loops are shorter and more shared infrastructure can be used. Shared infrastructure always is cheaper than dedicated infrastructure.

But cable operators face the same general financial problem. As fiber is pulled closer to end user locations, the cost rises dramatically. At some point, after DOCSIS 3.0 is deployed and bandwidth is reclaimed by moving to digital video, raw bandwidth might still have to be increased. And that is going to take significant capital investment.

For the most part, then, copper drops of one sort or another are likely to be with us for quite some time.