General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Wed 15-Jun-11 18:01:35
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
are nottingham and leics the only 2 big cities left untouched? I assumed it be more then that, if its only those 2 then thats odd.

although derby now has 1 inner city exchange planned, and probably a few outlying ones, all 3 areas still have a very low % overall planned.

Untouched? I'm not so sure. Long Eaton is in the plans - but even with a Derby postcode, I always thought of it to be more an outer suburb of Nottingham, back when I lived in Beeston. And both Nottingham and Leicester have 1 or 2 exchanges done, or in the existing plans.

But I reckon that the smattering of exchanges in the East Midlands isn't much different from the few that have been announced around Leeds, Bradford, Bristol or Wakefield, Coventry, Newcastle or Sunderland.

The sad fact is that, even though we've been going through this rollout for a long time, the project lasts much longer yet - until 2015. The process is still ramping up, after all! There are a lot of cities left to be done - large cities, never mind the small ones - and a lot of cabinets in places already "live". 2015 - so there will be people on here who can rightfully expect to be upgraded to FTTC who won't be due for another 3 years plus (assuming they can keep to that plan!). Someone will be in the very last exchange, and will need a lot of patience between now and then

There is a quote on the original story on the OP:
This is ... one of the biggest civil engineering projects running in the country at this time.

I just wish they'd back it up with one of the biggest project management and information efforts in the country too.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jun-11 18:11:08
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I meant city areas untouched wink sure we have some villages and the odd suburban area been planned.

given the last announcement had hardly any exchanges it seems to be slowing down if anything, and I think most of 2013-2015 will be the subsidised rural areas.

I also havent forgotten the blunt and direct exchanges not viable when my MP asked BT. Not they will come later.

I think you clutching at straws as you seem to be suggesting they moving around england enabling counties at a time, which doesnt explain how they can enable a little village called rothley and a little town called coalville in the middle of nowhere, everything between them untouched and they pick one suburb and leave the rest alone. No logical rollout expanding from the original ones.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 15-Jun-11 18:16:03)

Standard User WWWombat
(member) Wed 15-Jun-11 18:18:16
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by camieabz:
In reply to a post by Andrue:
NGA is not a 'human right'. It's a service that BT choose to offer in exchange for money. If a customer won't or can't pay enough money then BT don't provide the service. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?


I don't consider it a human right, but I do believe that lesser services should pay a proportional amount compares to better services. That's fair.

When people use that argument, it usually comes down to speed, and suggesting that those with a lower speed should pay less.

To some extent, I agree. However, we must also recognise that not all of the money paid goes towards speed. Those people on lines with slower speeds were, unfortunately, probably also harder to get the line to in the first place, and more expensive. But *that* part of the cost is harder to visualise and account for, whereas speed is easily observable (and easily complained about). The service costs the same amount to provide a DSLAM for, the same amount for a cabinet, and costs more for the cable and ongoing maintenance of the outdoor aspects.

So it probably isn't fair to pay proportionately, where the proportion is based *solely* on speed.

Would you agree with a price differential of, say 50p? So you get broadband 50p cheaper if your speed is less than 2Mbps? Yes, I know there would be accounting difficulties for those whose speed varied above & below this line, but would you support just the basic principle?


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jun-11 18:18:50
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
yeah I stopped been a joker paying £20+ a month as well as line rental for a very dodgy out of date 5mbit service.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jun-11 18:22:31
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by camieabz:
In reply to a post by Andrue:
NGA is not a 'human right'. It's a service that BT choose to offer in exchange for money. If a customer won't or can't pay enough money then BT don't provide the service. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?


I don't consider it a human right, but I do believe that lesser services should pay a proportional amount compares to better services. That's fair.

When people use that argument, it usually comes down to speed, and suggesting that those with a lower speed should pay less.

To some extent, I agree. However, we must also recognise that not all of the money paid goes towards speed. Those people on lines with slower speeds were, unfortunately, probably also harder to get the line to in the first place, and more expensive. But *that* part of the cost is harder to visualise and account for, whereas speed is easily observable (and easily complained about). The service costs the same amount to provide a DSLAM for, the same amount for a cabinet, and costs more for the cable and ongoing maintenance of the outdoor aspects.

So it probably isn't fair to pay proportionately, where the proportion is based *solely* on speed.

Would you agree with a price differential of, say 50p? So you get broadband 50p cheaper if your speed is less than 2Mbps? Yes, I know there would be accounting difficulties for those whose speed varied above & below this line, but would you support just the basic principle?


I would welcome the old pricing system back, before ofcom changed it to force higher takeup. 50p would be an insult.

I cant see whats wrong with something like this given that the average joe 2mbit is very adequate.

below retail

512kbit - £10 month
2mbit - £15 month
8-10mbit - £20 month
20-40mbit - £30 month
80-100mbit - £50 month

VM have no issue offering differing speeds for diff prices. Also we would then see backhaul prices drop again on BTw as the main reason backhaul is extorniote over BTw is the underpriced ports.
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Wed 15-Jun-11 21:22:33
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I'd be more inclined to look at pricing as £5 pm for 4 Meg and below, and 50p per step up on the bRAS profiles through ADSLmax and ADSL2+ or £1 per step perhaps.

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/IPprofile.htm#IP_and_bRAS...

My problem is more with those who cannot get a decent connection, but are forced to pay the same price as folk on 24 Meg ADSL2+ through no fault of their own. They can get 60GB limits but it would take them hours to watch a streamed news report. It has to be fit for purpose. The Internet has grown with objects and Web 2 etc and no one seems interested in minimising websites (the same people with fast Internet I assume). It's a double whammy for someone on 256K. Pay the same, and we're making it harder and harder for you to use it. The Internet is great. The infrastructure available in the UK for the Internet is not fit for purpose now, and it will get worse.

Some people are referring to ADSL as a utility nowadays. Gas is metered, electricity is metered. Why not ADSL? 10GB built in with every contract and say £2.50 per 10GB up to 50GB, then £5 per 10GB etc, or something along those lines.

I appreciate that some will wonder why they should bother about others' speeds etc, but they bother enough to argue that it's not their problem (they get fast BB for little cost, and know it).

I myself get a decent connection, but I've been an advocate of lower bandwidth web design, and better coverage of 2 Meg or 4 Meg for those that don;t get it yet. Why? There will come a time when my 6.5 Meg is not enough. Perhaps in a year or two. Then I'll be the one moaning about my own setup. So it's partly self-interest, and it's partly so I'm not a hypocrit when it's my turn, but it's mostly because it's the right thing to be doing. Some argue that rural folk shouldn't have moved out there, or that they could move to the urban areas. Not all rural folk moved out there. Some have their livelihoods there.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User Andrue
(knowledge is power) Wed 15-Jun-11 21:48:48
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
so that cold hard financial planning is enabling small seaside town sheringham which will be half empty every winter and has no areas for 10s of miles around it enabled?
So what's your theory - BT hates your guts? You're on a secret black list? The CEO visits that seaside town every second week in June?

I agree that their reasoning isn't always obvious but whatever the logic it's a business decision. There's just no point taking it personally. It's not BT's fault if your exchange is a long way down the list. It'll be some combination of geography, economics and demographics and BT probably has no more control over that then the residents.

Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK

Just because he can smile
Standard User FRS_Plunderer
(experienced) Wed 15-Jun-11 21:48:58
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
VM have no issue offering differing speeds for diff prices. Also we would then see backhaul prices drop again on BTw as the main reason backhaul is extorniote over BTw is the underpriced ports.


To be fair though and concerning Wombats point that costs rise when your pushing services out over longer distances that reduce ADSL speeds. There are a lot of areas VM won't touch for fear of not making a profit as they will face similar operating costs...

Slow service or no service, since you can generally argue that shorter lines with higher speeds and lower maintenance costs are subsidising the longer slower lines. But then you can argue that the high speed users take a larger bite of the backhaul... well potentially, depends on the user really.

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Thu 16-Jun-11 00:56:31
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
I meant city areas untouched wink sure we have some villages and the odd suburban area been planned.

given the last announcement had hardly any exchanges it seems to be slowing down if anything

The announcements have indeed slowed down - but I think that is because BT really did have to adjust their original plans down in scale earlier in the year - whether it was because of boundless optimism, or because of the weather, or just bad planning.

No matter the reason, the effect is that they can't handle too many exchanges over the existing announcements, unless they get a lot more manpower into the system.

So overall, I reckon the slowdown in announcements is because they're more realistic with the plans, and they're letting reality catch up with their previous ambition.

I also havent forgotten the blunt and direct exchanges not viable when my MP asked BT. Not they will come later.

Ah - well, I can't factor that into my thinking, can I? Did he ask about the area, cities, towns, or individual exchanges?

And when was this? Was it when BT had their original plans of 40%, or the more recent target of 67%?

I think you clutching at straws as you seem to be suggesting they moving around england enabling counties at a time, which doesnt explain how they can enable a little village called rothley and a little town called coalville in the middle of nowhere, everything between them untouched and they pick one suburb and leave the rest alone. No logical rollout expanding from the original ones.

I don't think they're *quite* working that way. But I do think the biggest limitation is human manpower - in both the training of the right skilled people, and then having them in the right place, at the right time.

If they have 20 places on a training course, do they send 20 people from all over the country, randomly? Or do they try to get people who will ultimately form 2 or 3 teams from one area of the country? The latter technique gets teams up & running faster, but it means the rollout has to concentrate on certain areas first.

Are they doing that? I have no idea whatsoever. But I have worked at the planning of putting staff onto projects, and getting those projects to continue over long periods. The biggest factors involved were always about have the right staff doing the right thing, at the right time. I don't doubt that BT have a bigger headache in having to do all of that, but spread throughout the country.

And that's only the teams installing the core networks. Once the product is ready for service, then the installation at a punter's property needs a number of the local engineers to have been trained too. That's probably also a good reason for staggering rollout across the country.

As for which exchanges get done in what order, within an area? I don't know that either. Perhaps, once they have some teams trained up for the local area, they start them out on easier exchanges first - villages, or smaller towns perhaps. Perhaps they will only tackle the bigger places once there are a few teams ready in the area, and they've had practice elsewhere.

and I think most of 2013-2015 will be the subsidised rural areas.

I reckon about a third of BT's effort then will be for the subsidised areas. The other two thirds of their time will be with them expanding from the 40% mark up to the 67% mark.

Remember that "10 million premises in 2012" is BT's old target (from 2010) - which they said was 40% of the UK.

The latest PR from BT was "...five million premises is a significant milestone and we are well on our way to passing 10 million in 2012 and two-thirds of UK premises by the end of 2015."

That means there is another 27% to go in the 2013-2015 period just to get to their own "two-thirds" self-funded target. That's 7 million premises in the 3 year period.

The unplanned rural areas are then the final third - although I'm sure I've also seen the subsidies refer to only 20%, without it being clear as to whether that 20% are the properties in the next 67-87% range, or in the final 80-100% range. That third represents 8 million, and 20% represent 5 million... but will BT get any of those? If I stick a wild-guess finger in the air, and guess that BT will end up with half of the smaller number, that's another 2.5 million premises in the same 3 year timescale.

If they got all that business, a total of 9.5 million premises in 3 years is roughly identical to the 10 million they look to achieve in the 3 years of 2010-2012.

I've seen mentioned that BT are passing 70,000-80,000 premises each week - perhaps 3.5 million per year.

Those figures all stack together to suggest that BT are running at full speed on the rollout - and that they need to keep it going for the next 18 months to hit their first target. They'll also need to sustain the same speed for another 3 years if they get any of that rural work too; without it they could slow down to just 50,000 premises per week.

They'll probably be harder premises to pass (unless they really are keeping Nottingham & Leicester until last wink ), so they might still need more people.

All-in-all, while the exchange announcements have slowed down, it seems that the work hasn't... and can't.
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Thu 16-Jun-11 02:38:58
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: FRS_Plunderer] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by FRS_Plunderer:
Slow service or no service, since you can generally argue that shorter lines with higher speeds and lower maintenance costs are subsidising the longer slower lines. But then you can argue that the high speed users take a larger bite of the backhaul... well potentially, depends on the user really.

That was going to be my next point... the cost of backhaul, and the chunk that slower users do (or don't) take out of it.

First...

I notice that people thought my "50p" thing was a bit low, and that something like £1 per profile band was more appropriate. It wasn't a joke - and I deliberately chose that value: In January 2010, An Openreach document showed their GEA *wholesale* price for 40/2 FTTC to £6.90, and the 40/10 FTTC price to £7.40.

That puts a distinct value on 2Mb vs 10Mb without taking any backhaul costs into account.

Today, BT Wholesale's pricelist (the next level up the supplier chain) shows WBC 40/2 to cost £13 and 40/10 to be £14.

I guess BTW factors in some of the backhaul cost - but its still only an extra 50p.

The total backhaul costs are effectively priced into the cost of central pipes plus (if I understand it correctly) a payment the ISPs have to make for their predicted backhaul usage. That means backhaul costs are essentially measured by the average volume of data consumed by all the ISP's customers, rather than the speed they consume at - so need to be seen as an additional part of the ISP's Retail package that you choose to buy, with 10GB, 20GB, 120GB, or unlimited usage.

That link to BT wholesale shows DSL costs £5.88 per line - presumably before the discount for market 3 customers. That is the money where there is scope for rebate due to line speeds. Given that it is pretty much fixed cost without regard to speed, I don't see much room for manoeuver. Except maybe to put the price up for those people on high speeds?

So it does seem likely that the kind of rebates you could ever hope to see for being on different speed levels is indeed going to be around 50p per order of magnitude, and not 50p per profile level.

The area where the lower-speed cutomers are likely to make more of a saving is by being on a low-usage tariff, where the low usage happens to come about as a consequence of their slow speed. And that means they need to move to an ISP that allows for this - rather than one which takes their money to subsidise those customers who want an "unlimited" service without paying for it.

An interesting article, if somewhat dated now, over at Plusnet
Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to