NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] No fiber please, we're British

----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> -----

Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:57:35 -0500
From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: [IP] No fiber please, we're British
Reply-To: dave@farber.net
To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "D.H. van der Woude" <dhvanderwoude@gmail.com>
> Date: November 28, 2009 8:34:11 AM EST
> To: dave@farber.net
> Subject: No fiber please, we 're British

> Fave, for IP if you wish.
> This post by Herman Wagter may be of interest to some
> http://www.dadamotive.com/2009/11/no-fiber-please.html
> No fiber please
> Posted by Herman | November 26 | 2009 6:37 PM |
> A seemingly unrelated and innocuous taxation may explain a part of the 
> (lack of) broadband development in the UK, especially outside the bigger 
> cities.
> Lit fibers are subject to a property tax (unlike copper wires used for 
> telephony or DSL).
> The VOA (Valuation Office) sets the rateable value.
> You can expect to pay for backhaul or corporate networks
> £0.28 per metre per fibre per annum for 2 fibers,
> £0.17 per metre per fibre per annum for 4 fibers,
> The rate scheme drops quickly with the number of fibers in a route to 
> £0.05 per metre per fibre per annum for 40 fibers.
> £7.50 per home passed per annum for fibre access networks (to be fin 
> alized).
> " As NGA will be mainly the replacement of existing copper  
> infrastructure, the VO considers that the level of value for  
> residential NGA connections will be similar to the £7.50 per home pa 
> ssed adopted for cable TV access networks, the nearest comparable ne 
> twork currently offering broadband services".
> The rating scheme penalizes small operators and companies that start  
> their business: their average cost is much, much higher than large  
> existing corporations with a lot of fibers and long lengths. The ones 
> with a lot of fiber can add fiber with low marginal costs of taxation, 
> new entrants have a hard time.
> What about smaller villages?
> Lets assume a minimum of 2 fibers in a redundant ring to a village with 
> 1000 homes where 50 % of the people are dying for broadband access, 
> approx 30 km away from the nearest backhaul aggregation point.
> The tax rate is £0.28 per metre per fibre per annum for backhaul of 2 
> fiber, 60.000 meters (redundant ring) and 2 fibers lead to a tax bill of 
> £ 33.600 per year, or  £ 67.2 per connected user (50 % penetration). 
> Auch.
> No wonder you are on your own if you live somewhere a bit off the  
> centre of a city. The business case get harder en harder just because of 
> taxation designed in 2000. The backhaul networks are probably minimized 
> in number of fibers and capacity, shared as much as possible to reduce 
> the costs, leading to high overbookingsratios and lacklustre response 
> times of websites. Could that again be a reason why broadband adoption 
> outside the cities is relatively low?
> It is hard to get a causal relationship proven, but one starts to  
> wonder....

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

----- End forwarded message -----