4 ms·

Not particularly, there's very little justification for running copper to new houses given we're in a nationwide rollout of fibre and there's a big cost saving

by IanCal 4y ago

Not particularly, there's very little justification for running copper to new houses given we're in a nationwide rollout of fibre and there's a big cost saving to moving entirely to fibre.

mhb 4y ago
So no need for a law then...
- izzydata 4y ago
  To me it seems like a way to really consider internet to be a public utility such as water and electricity. I'm sure there is a law that says any new construction requires it to be connected to the electricity grid, even though it would be pretty unreasonable to not connect it to the grid. Does that mean there is no need for it to be a law? At least this way you can have a good expectation of a new buildings utilities.
  - mhb 4y ago
    When you set a minimum standard, something that could have been bought for less that didn't meet that standard will no longer be an alternative. So some people will have something better and others will not have an option that they once did.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      It can make a maximum difference in cost of about 1% of the final sale price, probably less given the cap and average prices of new build properties. I don't think it'll have a big impact on whether the houses sell, we have a huge undersupply of new housing.
      - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        Yes. Now add 1,000 other regulations. Oh my, how the price of housing has gone up!
        aembleton 4y ago
        As there aren't enough houses to meet demand, the price is a function of available credit.
- IanCal 4y ago
  Developers will often do the cheapest thing they can, that doesn't necessarily lead to big differences in the end cost to buy but putting in copper to save a little on construction would be pointless overall given the changes that are happening. More importantly I think this law forces right of access for installing fibre in various situations, which has been a stumbling block for doing the work in other cases. Just from a quick scan of the coverage though.

by IanCal 4y ago

Not particularly, there's very little justification for running copper to new houses given we're in a nationwide rollout of fibre and there's a big cost saving to moving entirely to fibre.

mhb 4y ago

So no need for a law then...

izzydata 4y ago
To me it seems like a way to really consider internet to be a public utility such as water and electricity. I'm sure there is a law that says any new construction requires it to be connected to the electricity grid, even though it would be pretty unreasonable to not connect it to the grid. Does that mean there is no need for it to be a law? At least this way you can have a good expectation of a new buildings utilities.
- mhb 4y ago
  When you set a minimum standard, something that could have been bought for less that didn't meet that standard will no longer be an alternative. So some people will have something better and others will not have an option that they once did.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    It can make a maximum difference in cost of about 1% of the final sale price, probably less given the cap and average prices of new build properties. I don't think it'll have a big impact on whether the houses sell, we have a huge undersupply of new housing.
    - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      Yes. Now add 1,000 other regulations. Oh my, how the price of housing has gone up!
      - aembleton 4y ago
        As there aren't enough houses to meet demand, the price is a function of available credit.
IanCal 4y ago
Developers will often do the cheapest thing they can, that doesn't necessarily lead to big differences in the end cost to buy but putting in copper to save a little on construction would be pointless overall given the changes that are happening. More importantly I think this law forces right of access for installing fibre in various situations, which has been a stumbling block for doing the work in other cases. Just from a quick scan of the coverage though.