Another bit of WBC geographical charging

Effective 4th Jan BT Wholesale has different prices for WBC aggregation point charging. National coverage of Market 3 (competitive wholesale provision) is £15k per month whereas coverage of Market 1 (BT only) is £8k per month. Market 2 is £4,400 per month.

Previously there was one price for national coverage at £330k per year = £27.5k per month so this appears to just give the option of saving money if you're an LLU provider with presence in all the Market 3 exchanges but use Wholesale to access Market 1.

More possible changes to Market 1 Exchanges:
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4542-ofcom-to-int...

Nice to see progess with market 1 exchanges though whats needed is investment to bring communities up to date and expand competition.

Investment requires a return on investment - or put another way you willing to hand over your pension fund for this?

Investment requires a return on investment

indeed, and the OFCOM consultation document has some interesting stuff in it about how BT will need to add DSLAMs to Market 1 exchanges to cope with increasing bandwidth demands, so investment is seen by them as inevitable. Perhaps BT would take that opportunity to go to more of a 21CN architecture at relevant exchanges, rather than building more 20CN stuff ?

If BT improves the exchange to enable, say 21CN architecture as they will eventually have to do then they will be able to offer faster packages which most people would upgrade to in market 1 exchanges to get a better service. The better service costs more, returning more money to BT.

In some market 1 exchanges there will be large growth as villages are expanded to provide housing, increasing the population and demand for services. As urban sprawl is limited from towns and cities, commuter villages that are served by market 1 exchanges can be seen to be a good revenue source for BT etc to upgrade the exhanges that serve them.

There are remote places that will require large investment, proably goverment if they will see improvements, Market 1 really should be divided so that the final third can be shown as to what areas are a good return for investment and others that will need public funding to provide access to them which will proably be a gd few years down the road.

the trouble is, upgrading the infrastructure does not generate more money. the price difference is nothing when comparing the two technologies

I suspect most would as with all the banking shenanigans it's no worse a prospect than investing in unstable equities and further to that most peoples pensions are probably worth very at the moment anyway. lol