Updated at the bottom: Unless you’re using Enron math, BT’s new plan to connect 10 million homes — roughly 40 percent of the United Kingdom — with fiber networks at a cost of £1.5 billion doesn’t quite add up. At today’s conversion rate, that’s about $3 billion — or $300 to wire up each of these proposed 10 million homes.

BT hopes this will help it stave off competition from rivals who have started to use their new backbones and the latest technology to eat into its broadband business. Cable operator Virgin, for example, plans to use DOCSIS 3.0 to compete with BT. The incumbent has been reticent about upscaling its infrastructure over concerns that it would spend billions and then be forced to share with upstarts, the way it does now. By comparison, the new plan is closely tied to regulatory concessions and includes some sort of investment protection from Ofcom, the British regulator.

The Guardian writes:

Under the current regulatory regime, BT must allow rival service providers to use its network on the same terms as its own retail arm. There would be a huge outcry if that “equivalence” was lost, following the battles between BT, its rivals and the regulators at the start of this decade when Broadband Britain was just an ambition.

Nevertheless, BT’s announcement is full of more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese. Lets look at the deal from a distance: 10 million homes for $3 billion. In comparison, Verizon is spending about $22 billion to fiber up some 18 million homes. That’s a cost improvement of 9x, which means BT’s plan just doesn’t make sense, even if you take into account that somehow it will get massive sops from Chinese equipment maker Huawei.

BT plans to sell 100-meg connections to homes it will connect with fiber (FTTP) using mostly G-PON technologies. Other homes, which will be connected to special cabinets on the curb (which are, in turn, connected to the Internet using fiber), will get a top speed of 40 Mbps. So in a sense, the plan is a blend of broadband strategies being used by Verizon (all fiber) and AT&T (combination of fiber and copper.)

Having followed this business for some time, I know that neither of their strategies are cheap. Verizon spends close to $1,400 per connected home (assuming that everyone is going to sign up for the service). AT&T’s numbers are also higher than $300 per home.

According to my sources, it costs just north of $500 to get the network ready to offer households super broadband, or what is generically known in the industry as homes passed. This doesn’t include laying fiber to the home, its associated labor costs and the on-the-premise gear. All that costs between $750 and $1,000. The on-the-premise ONTs cost between $150 and $200 alone.

Given that the network is scheduled to be rolled out in 2012, let’s assume that by then, prices decline by half — but the numbers still don’t add up. It could be that this $300-per-home-for-fiber is on top of the previously announced spending on BT’s broadband buildout as part of the 21CN. But even taking that into account, I’m not ready to buy BT’s splashy announcement. I would like to know from BT the exact breakdown of the cost structure of their network.

BT’s new CEO, Ian Livingston, whom I had a chance to meet back in 2006, is a sales maven, given his background with a high-street retailer and an upstart ISP. Some say he’s so good he could sell ice to Eskimos. Of course.

Update: My good pal, Dave Burstein, who writes the influential newsletter DSL Prime, wrote in to point out why the news is spin. “There is nothing in the announcement that wasn’t discussed by Christopher Bland with Andrew Parker a year ago,” he wrote. Dave tracks the industry closely, so I’m not surprised he found the “spin” in the news. He also pointed out that by 2012, less than 1 million will be on fiber, and mostly new fiber.

And Andrew Odlyzko, the authority on broadband and networks, in an email to me noted that the incremental 100 million pounds in capital expenditure increase for this promised network upgrade is a mere 3 percent, and even that is contingent on regulatory relief from Ofcom.

Q: Is this investment dependent on Ofcom creating a new regulatory framework?

A: Yes. The right regulatory environment is vital for anyone seeking to invest. The funds required are extremely large and companies need confidence that risk-taking can be appropriately rewarded.

Image courtesy of BT plc.

The economic downturn, in particular the housing market slump, that has been pressuring U.S. telecom operators now seems to be extending to cable operators as well. After enjoying nearly eight quarters of solid growth, it looks like the U.S. cable telephony business is slowing down.

The proverbial canary in the coal mine sounded the alarm yesterday. ARRIS, which makes hardware for cable operators, lowered its second-quarter forecast for both profits and revenues. Management blamed maturing cable telephony deployments and a slow housing market on the reduced demand for cable telephony services.

I think both are valid points. First, cable voice has become pervasive. You can now call your cable operator and get a fixed line connection without worrying if they actually offer voice service in your market. (Whether you’re happy with them, however, is a different story altogether.) So it’s hardly a surprise that the demand for equipment would slow down.

As we’ve previously noted, cable VoIP has been on a tear. At the end of the first quarter, Comcast had 5.1 million customers, while Time Warner Cable had 3.17 million, followed by Cox’s 2.46 million, Cablevision’s 1.68 million and Charter’s 1.08 million. Many of these subscribers came at the expense of telephone companies. Telegeography estimated that there were about 16.3 million VoIP households at the end of the first quarter of this year.

The cable companies benefited from the previous surge in new housing starts, which led to spectacular growth in their broadband and voice telephony businesses and in turn, made it easier for people to switch away from telephone companies. A slowdown in this business is only natural. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if large cable companies saw a sharp slowdown in broadband growth as well.

The real question is, just how big will the slowdown be? With the second-quarter earnings season just getting underway, it won’t take long to find out.

A new report from Pew Internet shows that broadband growth in the U.S. has slowed down to a crawl, a sign that U.S. broadband carriers would have to work hard to find ways to grow their overall businesses. Pew points out that 55 percent of adult Americans have home broadband connections.

According to some estimates there are over 64 million broadband connections in the U.S. Some additional interesting bits from Pew’s report:

The research group finds out that low income groups — households with annual incomes of less than $20,000 — have started to cut back on broadband spending. Their broadband adoption rate had dropped to 25 percent in 2008 from 28 percent in 2007. It isn’t much of a surprise, because the economic downturn is forcing people to control and cut back their spending.

Earlier this year, telecom operators like Qwest & AT&T, pointed out they were experiencing the impact of this penny pinching. Of course, what didn’t help was the fact that it was their geographic footprint that played host to the housing bubble. New home sales drove the demand for broadband connections and as foreclosures started, the broadband party also started to wind down. The net new additions for the second quarter 2008 will tell an interesting story.

My feeling is that this is hurting the DSL providers more than cable companies and they are scrambling to respond by offering higher speeds. The smaller providers like Embarq & Windstream could be impacted the worst by the slowdown.

There is some research that shows that speed bumps are not quite the panacea for these carriers, though they might provide some temporary relief.

Bruce Leichtman recently conducted a survey and found out that nearly 72 percent of cable broadband subscribers, and 62 percent of telco broadband subscribers are happy with their broadband connection’s quality and speed. Only 24 percent are interested in getting faster connection and a mere 11 percent of broadband subscribers would pay an “additional $10 per month to double their Internet speed.”

In comparison, Pew’s report shows that 35 percent of dial-up users want broadband prices to decline further — fat chance of that happening when most carriers are dreaming of tiered Internet plans. Overall 62 percent of dial-up users say they are happy to be Slowskys. (That should make AOL and United Online rather happy.)

Download Pew’s Home Broadband Report (pdf.)

Bend Broadband, Comcast, Time Warner Cable — they’re all considering or going the route of the tiered (aka metered) broadband. Now add AT&T to that list, according to a report in CED magazine.

“A form of usage-based pricing for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns is inevitable,” according to an AT&T spokesman, though the company does not yet have a specific plan or policy. AT&T said the Top 5 percent of its DSL customers use 46 percent of the total bandwidth, which is consistent with cable industry experience.

Metered Broadband: Smart or Stupid?

• It'll save me money. I love it.
• Stupid Monopoly Tricks
• Snore... Whatever

It isn’t surprising — the tiered model for AT&T would help prop up its IPTV effort, U-verse. What is surprising is that company officials, many of them at the senior levels, have made it a point to tell me that unlike cable they had no plans to do any such thing. This news report makes me highly suspect about their past assurances, and the comment to Stacey from AT&T’s spokesperson makes me think it’s just a matter of time before the phone company gets that meter ticking.

We’re always evaluating our broadband plans and services, but have nothing new to announce today regarding our pricing structure. That said, given the usage trends we’re seeing, a form of usage-based pricing for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns is one of the many options we’ll explore. Usage-based pricing is one way to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among broadband users.

Entertainment is vital to Los Angeles, especially video entertainment. So it has to be embarrassing for Time Warner Cable to be told by the city, in a lawsuit, that its cable TV service sucks.

Nobody likes to be told this sort of thing. But looking past the public relations hit, the question is: How damaging could this lawsuit be? At this point, it looks like a pesky nuisance, and not much more, for the cable giant.

Here’s why: Assuming Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo can prove his case, he wants Time Warner Cable, and parent company Time Warner, to make some customer service improvements and pay some money to the city and LA cable subscribers. The LA Times said civil penalties from the suit could be in the “tens of millions of dollars.” For Time Warner Cable, a $29 billion company, that liability is manageable.

Two years ago, Time Warner became the dominant cable TV provider in LA after city leaders approved an acquisition of Adelphia Communications and an asset swap with Comcast. As part of the deal, Time Warner agreed to LA’s unique customer service standards for cable TV companies, including a 30-second time limit for answering consumers’ phone calls and a 24-hour time limit for fixing TV service problems. (Hey FCC! Why don’t you have standards like those?!)

If Time Warner fell short of LA’s subscriber standards, it seems the company has probably violated the local franchise agreement that allows it to dominate the market, too. But the suit against Time Warner doesn’t raise a dispute over the franchise agreement. So Time Warner will likely maintain control over the TV market in LA, even if it loses the customer service suit in court.

While not so uncommon overseas, bandwidth caps and metered broadband are coming to the US market place. Time Warner is the first major cable company to announce its metered broadband strategy & prices for a small Texas market, in what can be described as draconian.

We have written about Bend Broadband of Oregon resorting to such tricks. Comcast, recently proposed bandwidth caps as well. What it means: get ready to pay more and get less for broadband. Will this spur into action, and switch ISPs or look for alternatives. Take our poll and share your opinion.