Why don't government fibre initiatives measure connected homes/businesses as a performance measure?
It's interesting to read how eager governments are to fund initiatives to roll out fibre in their cities or states but I wonder sometimes if some of the dots are missing...? We all know the claims around how GDP increases with connected citizens and businesses, which is quite correct but are those citizens and businesses ultimately connected through these projects?
Often the targets given and measured are government sites themselves including schools and libraries with the intention that the enablers of the projects will, in fact, connect homes and businesses too. Of course, if no targets are set for connecting homes and businesses too it is unlikely that will actually happen.
In reality, the most expensive connectivity (with the lowest income) is individual homes. And often homes eventually get connected via private enterprise projects or wireless LTE.
So whilst it is quite popular to tote the GDP stats and state the ideal world benefits I'm not so sure that the taxpayer-funded projects are translating into actual homes/businesses being connected with fibre around the world? And private industry is often no better by chasing after capturing the lucrative areas first (two or more companies installing in a suburb) and ignoring an adjacent less affluent area (zero installations).
Fibre (especially trenched fibre) is an expensive investment in a market where connectivity prices are falling. Whilst the ideals and intentions are excellent, the practice is not so ideal for many. It will likely be sorted out in a few years but it is a pity that the growth is so uneven.
|Why NBN Co's justifications for not rolling out fibre to the premises are misleading
Take away the misleading statements in NBN Co's latest blog, add some important missing information, and it becomes clear that FTTP is now cheaper to roll out than ever.