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 camieabz
(legend) Thu 16-Jun-11 10:17:09
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:
The only way left to give discounts to those with terrible lines is to hike the price for those with good lines.


That's the point, but the choice of words is noticed. 'Hike' suggests massive costs, whereas I am suggesting reasonable costs for more usage and speed. Think about it. If the money then gets invested in making the rural areas faster, they will pay more too until areas have the speeds they can physically get, rather than what BT is prepared to supply.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
The strange thing is that we've got really good value access to the internet today, from a wide range of suppliers.


If you're lucky enough to live in an area with coverage. Rural market 1 places aren't getting the access, and have only one supplier. THe value is relative to the service provided.


In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Its as fundamental to my choice as the provisions of schools & hospitals.


Ironically, schools and hospital get priority on high-speed broadband over residential premises. Perhaps rural folk should demand that for their public facilities and tie in to that connection. Make it a public funding issue at the infrastructure level.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Thu 16-Jun-11 10:22:38
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:
Why? I think it all comes down to the "up to" problem that came about with ADSLmax. From this time onwards, it was impossible to know what level of service you were *really* getting. And therefore all ISPs look identical at the sales/marketing level, where the underlying service is anything but.


That's one of the big problems imo. Prior to the max rollout, everyone knew that 512k or 1024 or 2048 was what they were paying for. Now there are thousands of people getting speeds nowhere near 8 Meg, but they quite possibly could do if the local wiring was looked at. However they are not in the know. If by magic all the local wiring issues were solved the capacity demand would be massive, and prices would rise.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Thu 16-Jun-11 10:36:02
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:
And if no-one else can make a profit from service there, should we really expect that BT is making so much more profit that it can be labelled a cash-cow?

Logic suggests otherwise.


The logic is sound if the facts are accurate. smile

I'm more inclined to consider that BT's competition is, like BT, focussing on the 'more profitable' due to the low prices. Low prices force the wholesalers to push for more access to areas with high population density. Part of it is lower infrastructure costs, and part of it is more return for the same outlay. Will you walk a mile for a pint of milk if there's a shop 100 yards away?

To suggest that there's no profit is not a fair statement. Less profit due to pop density would be closer to the truth imo.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test


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

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 13:34:07
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
thanks for taking the time on my points.

it is entirely possible and may well be the case in some areas that BT lose money on some areas, but I think some market 1 areas at least will be cash cows for BT, they may have took a while to break even but after that its easy money with no threat of a competitor to take the customers. As for LLU, well they like sheep follow each other around, I guess they just dont like trying something new and risky, but we are seeing LLU isp's still slowly expanding into smaller and smaller exchanges.

I have posted more than once I think the market needs a "price hike" on the higher level services, so yes essentially meaning better lines and people in FTTC areas paying more, but this is for the good of the market as well as adding a degree of fairness to the products available. The current pricing model at the wholesale level is artifically created, when adsl was first launched that was a more natural pricing model, what we have now and what happened with adsl max was artifical. For the reason you stated "value broadband". xDSL in the uk can be a nightmare service if you living in the wrong place, its not just slow speeds but you could also be a victim of a unstable line and then having to face a fight to get openreach to fix (one of the problems created by ofcom). Of course this is straying off topic a bit now but I am assuming FTTC is generaly more stable than adsl, although I think noone has made an analysis of that yet.

I agree maintenance costs for long lines arent obviously that high as they not enough to warrant FTTC rollout's, so that will mean they not that high and the more expense to provide over long lines is as such not that significant either, personally I have not seen evidence of maintenance on my own BT line in the few years I had it, neither have I visibly seen BT vans out working on anything in my area during that time, they as rare as hens teeth round here, lots of VM vans tho.

The lower pricing model may have worked to get people hooked up, but now it doesnt need to stick around, the bait is cast and people are hooked.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 16-Jun-11 13:34:33)

Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 19:26:18
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:
Will you walk a mile for a pint of milk if there's a shop 100 yards away?

To suggest that there's no profit is not a fair statement. Less profit due to pop density would be closer to the truth imo.

You are of course right - it is a sliding scale, and a business will (almost always) aim for the lowest hanging fruits.

So yes - some will be profitable, but barely worth the effort. That usually means it has to wait until either a change of mind, or some new form of technology that makes it more viable (but which probably makes other places more profitable too), or a subsidy.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 20:52:40
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
On an entirely different front, just looking at urban population statistics:

I found a report on the UK's largest urban areas from the 2001 census.

Nottingham is the 8th largest urban area in the UK. Leicester is 15th.

The top 25 urban areas account for 25 Million people - or about 43% of the country. The 25th place, incidentally, was Swansea with a size of 270,000.

It is probably fair to say that BT's *original* plan, to cover 40% of the UK by 2012, would have mainly focussed on exactly these areas (except, presumably, they can't do Kingston upon Hull).

I then wondered what BT's new plan, to cover 67% of the UK by 2015, would focus on if it only went for the top N urban areas... that needed a bit more digging.

I found this page, which has statistics from the 2001 census on population in urban areas - which it took down to sizes of 1,500. This was for England & Wales only, so we have to ignore Scotland & NI from the figures, which may skew the results some.

This spreadsheet had 1,950 places, of size >= 1500.

I fiddled with the data in the spreadsheet, and found that it defined 46.8 Million people in these "urban areas of 1,500", from a total population of 52 Million - It was exactly 90%.

(I wonder how much the non-urban 10% correlates to the 10% that are served by market 1 exchanges, or to the "hard to reach 10%"?)

Anyway, I then applied the "two-thirds" criteria to the total E+W population, and got a value of 34.8 Million.

I then fiddled with the spreadsheet again, ordering towns by population, and found that the cutoff size for 34.8 Million people was for an urban area to be bigger than 41,000. There are 150 such places in England & Wales.

That is: The 150 largest urban areas make up 67% of England & Wales, and are sized at 41,000 or above. In terms of "premises" that is about 17,000 premises (2.35 people per house, on average).

Just missing out would be:
- Kings Lynn
- Grantham
- Kirkby
- Dover

Noticeable because it was just announced, but is on the "just missing out" size:
- Aberdare, of size 36,000

Obviously my list is just population-based, and takes no account of where exchanges are, or how many people are served by an exchange. But it certainly lets you know the scale!

The other conclusion is that the "next" part to cover - the part that presumably is to be subsidised (from 67% to 90%) - is made up of 1,800 different locations, with populations from 1,500 to 41,000.
Anonymous
(Unregistered)Thu 16-Jun-11 21:02:04
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
Agree with all your points. However there's one thing missing.

BT was privatised in the 1980s. No money whatsoever was spent on improving the last mile for nearly 30 years, until last year.

Nobody except BT has any significant control over where money is invested.

So if broadband prices could double tomorrow, why do you think that would lead to service improvements; if you were BT wouldn't you simply bank the profits?

What it's suggesting is that we would have to have control over BT Openreach in order to control the spending and make sure the increase in prices was met by an increase in infra provision.

We can't do that while it's in private hands and there still remains the same underlying problem we've had for years: unless there's competition there's no incentive.

Ironically the only way I could see to direct the spending would be to raise the prices and give all the money to Virgin Media and the mobile operators. Then BT would roll out FTTC everywhere. Not that I'm advocating that either.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:03:27
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:
The facts are there is small populated areas been activated in the middle of nowhere without other areas in close vicinity also been enabled. These are facts. Some of these areas also dont even have 21CN which puts into question if they also would need new backhaul provision to support FTTC.


Just to add that the backhaul for 21CN is separate to that of the FTTC backhaul.
21CN is BT Wholesale controlled.
FTTx is BT Openreach controlled.


There is a exchange near me which has FTTC deployed but no 21CN each cab backhauls to another exchange near by not the serving exchange.

BT Openreach are going to do this more with rural exchanges with cabs as this will allow them to decommission rural exchanges when VoNGA becomes mainstream.
The rural properties that were served from the exchange will either be moved to a new road side cab or have FTTP installed.

Paul
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:05:38
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
It is probably fair to say that BT's *original* plan, to cover 40% of the UK by 2012, would have mainly focussed on exactly these areas (except, presumably, they can't do Kingston upon Hull).

Just for fun BT Openreach could deploy FTTC in Hull but they would have to use the Kingston Comms version of LLU / SLU to do this.
(Like Digital Region in South Yorkshire)

Paul
Moderator billford
(moderator) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:21:22
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:
The top 25 urban areas account for 25 Million people - or about 43% of the country. The 25th place, incidentally, was Swansea with a size of 270,000.

It is probably fair to say that BT's *original* plan, to cover 40% of the UK by 2012, would have mainly focussed on exactly these areas (except, presumably, they can't do Kingston upon Hull).
I'm sure you're aware in reality that BT don't seem to have followed that methodology...

The town near to where I live has a population around 25,000 and comes in at below 500th in terms of size- FTTC went live last August crazy

Even the affluence argument doesn't fit all that well- the general area (South Oxfordshire) is undoubtedly reasonably well off, but the town (Didcot) was classified by the EU as a "deprived area" (or something similar, I forget the exact term).

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill

[email protected] _______________Planes and Cars and ..._______________BQM & Speed
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband moderator but it does not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | [4] | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to