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 Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 14-Jun-11 22:49:49
Print Post

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


[link to this post]
 
BT have stated the last 10% will be "hard to reach", will there be cities in these hard to reach areas?
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Tue 14-Jun-11 23:51:45
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
One wonders how quick BT billing would react if said 10% became 'hard to pay the bill'. smile

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Wed 15-Jun-11 02:50:35
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
I guess "hard to reach" is effectively "expensive to reach". And that is always going to be the sparsest places.

So if there is a small and widely spread city, then yes. But otherwise, I guess not.

Looking at the smallest cities in this list, I can see that Canterbury (42,500) & Lichfield (30,000) are already in the plans... and even Ely (14,000). Bangor (20,000) and Truro (19,000) are too, but they might be caught in the NI and Cornish roll-outs, rather than qualifying of their own right.

Ripon (24,000) may well make it. Wells (10,000) is possibly borderline, but St Davids probably needs to organise some prayers.

There's still hope for Nottingham & Leicester yet. I suspect that the reasoning is more to do with manpower


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

Standard User orly
(fountain of knowledge) Wed 15-Jun-11 04:43:17
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Bangor NI? Not 20,000 people here...closer to 60,000. One of the first ADSL exchanges, got SDSL early, LLU and now FTTC on it's own accord.

I suspect the Bangor on the site is the Welsh one.

---
BT Infinity 8th July 2010
(NIBA)
600m (approx) to cabinet
25.5mbit down / 7.6mbit up

Click here to see Comparison of FTTC ISPs
Which FTTC ISP do you use?
Standard User Andrue
(knowledge is power) Wed 15-Jun-11 09:39:41
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:
One wonders how quick BT billing would react if said 10% became 'hard to pay the bill'. smile
Quite quickly - they'd probably withdraw their service completely from those customers. Same as any other company trying to make a profit. Even BT's voice USC doesn't require them to provide services to customers that don't pay.

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?

There's no malice on BT's part here. It's just cold, hard financial planning. If the people you allude to live in an area where BT doesn't feel it can make sufficient profit to justify the investment then the investment doesn't get made. There's no point getting arsey about it. The last time our telecoms industry was operated on a 'not for profit' basis it ended up on the point of collapse. At least now almost everyone has an adequate service and it looks like 90% of us are going to have a very good service within the next few years.

Andrue Cope
Brackley, UK

Just because he can smile

Edited by Andrue (Wed 15-Jun-11 09:43:52)

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jun-11 13:15:07
Print Post

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


[re: Andrue] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Andrue:
In reply to a post by camieabz:
One wonders how quick BT billing would react if said 10% became 'hard to pay the bill'. smile
Quite quickly - they'd probably withdraw their service completely from those customers. Same as any other company trying to make a profit. Even BT's voice USC doesn't require them to provide services to customers that don't pay.

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?

There's no malice on BT's part here. It's just cold, hard financial planning. If the people you allude to live in an area where BT doesn't feel it can make sufficient profit to justify the investment then the investment doesn't get made. There's no point getting arsey about it. The last time our telecoms industry was operated on a 'not for profit' basis it ended up on the point of collapse. At least now almost everyone has an adequate service and it looks like 90% of us are going to have a very good service within the next few years.


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?

You keep repeating the same its down to costs etc. this rollout clearly has other factors than costs involved.

or I will apologise if it turns out you are one of the decision makers and hence know the thinking of this.

obviously you cannot comment if people will pay the price but you seem to have forgot that bt infinity retails for the same as adsl prices, around the same price as VMs lowest tier product.

Personally I find their decsion baffling, they dont have a monopoly in leics or nottingham, its not as if BT can say you pay this price for an obselete service tough luck, the customer can simply go to VM, and looking at VM's signup situation in leics since they enabled the area seems to suggest that is exactly whats happening. So FTTC retails same price as adsl and and aroun VM's lowest tier product, VM have had excellent signup (proven people will pay the price), area was first city outside of london to get adsl in 1999, early for 21cn. Suddenly not viable for FTTC. Not affluent enough, labour area, ducts that are a wreck, long indirect zig zagged runs to cabinets.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 15-Jun-11 13:29:00)

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 15-Jun-11 13:16:55
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
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.
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Wed 15-Jun-11 16:58:38
Print Post

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


[re: orly] [link to this post]
 
I think you're right.

So Bangor, Wales, is a city at 20,000 and Bangor, NI, is a town at 60,000. I guess that's a relic of the way that we define cities.
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Wed 15-Jun-11 17:02:04
Print Post

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


[re: Andrue] [link to this post]
 
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.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User WWWombat
(member) Wed 15-Jun-11 17:13:14
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:
obviously you cannot comment if people will pay the price but you seem to have forgot that bt infinity retails for the same as adsl prices, around the same price as VMs lowest tier product.

At the point of retail sale, you are correct. But at the wholesale level, the price of FTTC is definitely higher than ADSL. Undoubtedly the choices being made at the retail level are governed by a desire to get custom back from Virgin.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
Personally I find their decsion baffling, they dont have a monopoly in leics or nottingham, its not as if BT can say you pay this price for an obselete service tough luck, the customer can simply go to VM, and looking at VM's signup situation in leics since they enabled the area seems to suggest that is exactly whats happening. So FTTC retails same price as adsl and and aroun VM's lowest tier product, VM have had excellent signup (proven people will pay the price), area was first city outside of london to get adsl in 1999, early for 21cn. Suddenly not viable for FTTC. Not affluent enough, labour area, ducts that are a wreck, long indirect zig zagged runs to cabinets.

I seriously doubt that the area is "not viable for FTTC", and so the reason it is lower down on the roll-out plans is almost certainly something different.

Given the way that we seem to have seen FTTC get installed when it is due - with a large number of people working in a small area, aiming at getting the exchange converted quickly - it seems likely that BT's project plans are based around a kind of "blitz" plan.

That means they need to have the right skilled people all targetted into one area at a time... and I suspect that it is the way that they do this aspect of the plan, and related to the time needed to train those people, that means that the roll-out is ramping up in a disjoint way.

The thing is - somewhere has to be first, and somewhere has to be last.

Our exchange was early with ADSL, late with Max, really late with 21CN/2+, and relatively early with FTTC. That shows that, whatever is driving the order of the rollouts, it isn't just the nature of the customers, their affluency, their politics, or the competition with Virgin.

Perhaps their reasoning is that you *were* early on 21CN, so it is someone else's turn. It could be as simple as that!
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?
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
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 04:07:56
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:
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.

The market is effectively already doing this, isn't it? You pick the monthly package with the bandwidth you want, and pay for it. BT have 10, 40 and "unlimited"; Plusnet have 10, and 60.

For ISPs, the GB you use are a very significant part of their costs - there is no such thing as "unlimited" to them, even if they sell a package as such.

And the amount for the GB can be significantly more than the line rental for your access.

In reply to a post by camieabz:
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.

We already get dirt-cheap internet in this country because of the fight between providers... and it is that fight that has essentially negated any price differential on the speeds - every marketing department wants to be seen with the highest headline speed (regardless of the small print about distances etc) and the lowest price (regardless of the small print about it going back to full price in 3 months).

Because of this, the price of access is already down to a bare minimum independent of speed - largely because it is exactly that - independent of speed.

The only way left to give discounts to those with terrible lines is to hike the price for those with good lines.

I do sympathise here - but not over the cost. I'm one who knew that DSL would be life-changing back in 2000, and chose to pay for it. I believe that the need here is not to give an individual a rebate when his line isn't up to scratch. Instead it is to fix people's lines so they don't get the terrible speed... but it is going to cost someone, and there has to be technology capable of doing it for the price they are willing to pay.

I'd have been happy with that 50p tax on good lines, if it went to subsidising the bad ones. But perhaps it is fairer coming out of general taxation.

That all comes together in a heap involving: a) some form of tax subsidies to help the worst-off; b) the aim of providing speeds that are decent (and not just a minimum); c) a community effort to ensure no one person has to fix his line alone. With these ideals in mind, and suitable technology available, you can take the final step to d) a USO with a minimum speed requirement.

The USO is strange, because it isn't down to 1 company to provide. Instead it is almost a requirement on the community to ensure that they pick (and fund) technology that is suitable for everyone in their area. I can see there being a need for some kind of internet ombudsman at, say, each council to arbitrate between the funders and the consumers.

And as you point out - the internet grows to consume all the bandwidth thrown at it. A USO of 2Mbps sounds semi-reasonable today (about a decade after it was the highest speed available). That suggests a USO in a decade's time may need to be 40Mbps.

So a USO needs to grow too. And that's one reason why the subsidies for rural areas need to be targetting something much better than 2Mbps.

Then... with an obvious subsidy going toward decent provision - those on the slower speeds can finally stop complaining about paying the same. They will now know that they are being given a subsidised connection.

The infrastructure available in the UK for the Internet is not fit for purpose now, and it will get worse.


The strange thing is that we've got really good value access to the internet today, from a wide range of suppliers. The main reason behind that is a combination of the existing, widespread, copper access network, and a reasonable quality core network (or two), and the fact that we're piggy-backing our new data services on top of something that was originally built (and paid for) with different services in mind.Those 2 networks are long-term assets to the country.

The jump to a really good quality internet requires us to take the investment leap, to replace those networks - but that takes a lot of money. What gave us an advantage in value is now a hinderance in quality. Many, many people expect internet access to be cheap.

BT have made the leap for their core network. (Have Virgin done anything to theirs?)

To make the same leap for the access network, its going to take a bit more. Somehow us consumers have to persuade the people who invest in BT (and their like) that we want an access network fit for purpose.

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.

Like you, I do know it, and understand it. Indeed, I deliberately want the fibre-based broadband because it is my share of the investment in the future, paid in small monthly installments. I don't really need 40Mbps today - and 8 (or 6.5) was usually mostly sufficient (but don't tell the wife I said that, OK?). But by making these installments, I'm sending a message that I *do* want the telco providers, and their investors, to keep investing in the future.

200 years ago, families moved to the cities in search of work, to support their families.

Nowadays, fast reliable broadband is a fundamental to my life, and my family's life. For broadly similar reasons, I will now only move to somewhere with decent broadband. Its as fundamental to my choice as the provisions of schools & hospitals.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 04:25:25
Print Post

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


[re: Andrue] [link to this post]
 
you just been silly now, but I think its wrong to suggest that the rollout is following some kind of logical plan that is purely based on rollout costs when there is ever stronger evidence going against that.

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.

I have my own theory and of course its a theory I am not claiming this to be a fact that since affluent areas tend to be more vocal when they not happy, that they are been picked for that reason, not because its more likely to sell. I also believe BT have been leaned on politically on this rollout, hence the market town rollout alongside the villages that have been anbled so far. I hope I am allowed to discuss theories here.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 04:38:58
Print Post

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


[re: FRS_Plunderer] [link to this post]
 
If the long lines are maintained and money spent on fixing faults on them yes they are more costly, of course these lines already existed before adsl, so things like the costs of the lines been laid are not a factor. If BT are doing no maintenance and not fixing faults then there is in theory no extra cost. For fairness I will assume there is 'some' kind of maintenance done on lines which then would be higher cost when the line is longer, the higher speed of a line can potentially make costs significantly higher for an isp. eg. on my 30mbit VM line I can download in an hour during peak the same as what would take 6 hours on my old adsl service adding much more strain to the isp's capacity at peak.

Generally tho when I buy a product it is based on what I am recieving rather then the actual base cost to provide it. This thing we have with retail uk adsl prices been very tied to wholesale costs is somewhat unusual, in other service based products the price would be more linked to supply and demand rather than costs. If demand is high then profit margin would be higher. The FTTC retail price for infinity makes no sense both ways, its hard to accept the costs of providing infinity is the same as adsl when there has been billions spent rolling it out, and users have much higher speeds than adsl which of course drags up backhaul costs, demand seems to be high for infinity so the low price seems to be a simple loss leader to kill the competition or adsl is been overcharged for. Its one or the other.

So for me costs is irrelevant, its about what I am getting for my money. I couldnt give a rats ass if it costs the isp £100 a month to supply me with 512kbit adsl if they selling a 40mbit service as well I would expect to be paying significantly less than the 40mbit price.

Of course this adds another side to the discussion, if maintenance costs are significantly higher in long line areas, that would most defenitly be a business case for upgrading to fibre, as that would reduce maintenance costs signficantly. I think I remember saying a while back its my thoughts that those market 1 exchanges (which mine isnt) that are only supplied by BTw are a cash cow for BT, no LLU isp's to take all that lovely profit from BTw backhaul and no reduced port prices.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 04:44:32
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
yeah obviously I would expect things to be changed at the wholesale level.

Personally I think isps here arent run too well, they link prices too heavily to port costs and then work round the backhaul costs associated with burst speed by utilising traffic management.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 04:48:02
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
ok so if I understand you right the announcements covering up until the end of 2012 are approx 75% of the not subsidised rollout. That suggests to me they can slow things down after that date as it would be the 27% left to do in the last 3 years vs 75% done in 2 years. Rural areas I would expect to be much slower paced so that may match up, but of course if subsidised work is been done on top of that then its more than 27%.

Is the rollout manpower a team that moves around the country or using local BT staff? I am curious why there seems to be manpower galore in some areas and only enough in the east midlands to enable affluent exchanges. (assuming is down to manpower).
Standard User ccxo
(regular) Thu 16-Jun-11 05:33:21
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
It's worth pointing out that BT has moved away from its "phased" approach to the rollout. The operator told ISPreview.co.uk that where they have spare manpower/capacity they will bring exchanges forward, where there isnít the resource they will move them back and "thus keeping the overall momentum of the programme up".

Taken from the above site, which answers you're question to the manpower issue and why some exchanges are faster then others.

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 05:57:24
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
59% will be done by 2012, I think. (10 million / (67% * 25 million))

The announcements I used were the high-level management target ones. I haven't tried to see if the exchanges announced up to 2012 are enough to meet those targets; we should be able to use those announcements to work out how many more exchanges we can expect.

So yes - there could be slowdowns in those 3 years, if needed - a reduction from 70,000 to 50,000. But I'm sure they will get a reasonable proportion of the extra work to make up the difference.

As I said, I have no idea how the rollout manpower moves around, or even if it does.

There is a bonus for those who wait longer...

BT say that FTTP will make up 25% of the rollout.

It could well be that some places are being deliberately held back from early FTTC installation because they are destined for FTTP later.

Whatever the reason, time will tell.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 06:10:56
Print Post

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


[re: ccxo] [link to this post]
 
I'd not seen that they'd abandoned the phases, but it makes a lot of sense - they'd already bumped too much stuff around anyway.
Standard User orly
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 16-Jun-11 07:23:26
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Well here we have Belfast and Londonderry

And then Armagh (population less than 15,000), Newry (less than 30,000) and Lisburn which is basically a big over spill town on the edge of Belfast. None of them are really cities in the sense most people perceive cities to be.

---
BT Infinity 8th July 2010
(NIBA)
600m (approx) to cabinet
25.5mbit down / 7.6mbit up

Click here to see Comparison of FTTC ISPs
Which FTTC ISP do you use?
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 08:52:14
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:
If the long lines are maintained and money spent on fixing faults on them yes they are more costly, of course these lines already existed before adsl, so things like the costs of the lines been laid are not a factor. If BT are doing no maintenance and not fixing faults then there is in theory no extra cost. For fairness I will assume there is 'some' kind of maintenance done on lines which then would be higher cost when the line is longer,

I guess the problem is that the lines were originally laid for a different, more tolerant service. We're just using them to piggy-back a new service that drives them *way* beyond their original expectations.

And the new services mean we see problems on the lines much more frequently than ever before. The same faults we used to get - broken wires, corroded joints, trees rubbing on lines, ice damage, rodents eating the things.

In voice days, we'd probably put up with a bit of hiss on the line, but DSL cannot cope with it as well. On an 8Mbps line, a slight degradation isn't noticed. On a 512K line, the same degradation is instantly noticed, and needs fixing.

Longer lines and more joints make for more chance of the problems occurring. More problems and less tolerance all make for more maintenance.

This thing we have with retail uk adsl prices been very tied to wholesale costs is somewhat unusual, in other service based products the price would be more linked to supply and demand rather than costs.

The government & Ofcom have created a very strange market. By forcing BT to wholesale access to our lines, it allows any ISP company to come along and piggy-back on BT's long-term investment. The ISP itself doesn't have to play to any of the regular supply & demand rules that a full telco would, nor work to the usual ideas of a long-term investment.

That market has given us consumers a huge choice in ISP. Some want to do a "proper" quality job; some want to do a cheap job, and some see it as a thing to be bundled into existing packages. Sky TV doing broadband? Or is that really because they want bundles like Virgin? The Post Office too? Bizarre!

A decade ago, we had an even stranger setup - where the Freeserve business model gave you free internet, so long as you didn't look at the phone bill. Given the direction we've come since then, with DSL broadband, and always-on, this model was something of a blind alley, and worse than that - set some bad expectations.

The huge number of ISPs obviously needs to compete... and it has done so by trying to get the highest headline speeds (but hiding the congestion & management consequences) with lowest prices (so long as you take a bundle, and forget the service). People had already been using a "free internet" business model, so consumer expectations were for really low prices. The prices that an ISP could charge have to nosedive to somewhere close to costs, and everyone is reduced to working off very low margins. Hey presto. Simples.

Marketers have unfortunately ensured we have a value network in the UK. Cheap as chips, but not exactly fit-for-purpose. At least for any decent definition of "purpose".

If demand is high then profit margin would be higher.

Only if supply is restricted. But a BT phone line is a pretty ubiquitous thing, and BT are then forced to allow any ISP provide service to you. The trouble is that there is any number of awful suppliers out there. There's no restriction whatsoever.

The FTTC retail price for infinity makes no sense both ways, its hard to accept the costs of providing infinity is the same as adsl when there has been billions spent rolling it out,

Depends where you look. My FTTC is via PlusNet. That runs cheaper than BT's Infinity offering, but it still costs £10pm extra for being fibre. For many other ISPs, FTTC is higher price.

and users have much higher speeds than adsl which of course drags up backhaul costs, demand seems to be high for infinity so the low price seems to be a simple loss leader to kill the competition or adsl is been overcharged for. Its one or the other.

Or both?

So for me costs is irrelevant, its about what I am getting for my money. I couldnt give a rats ass if it costs the isp £100 a month to supply me with 512kbit adsl if they selling a 40mbit service as well I would expect to be paying significantly less than the 40mbit price.

And that really sums up a set of problems in the UK market. For a variety of reasons, it just doesn't function in a way that matches your expectations.

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.

When this gets crossed with the expectation-levels set by Freeserve - Everything is free, but the service is bad - then we really confuse things.

The ease with which you can set yourself up as an ISP means that many have. And they don't all have the intention of giving you the best internet service.

Of course this adds another side to the discussion, if maintenance costs are significantly higher in long line areas, that would most defenitly be a business case for upgrading to fibre, as that would reduce maintenance costs signficantly.

I'm sure it is included in the models. But the cost of installation is just too huge relative to the maintenance cost.

Justifications for 21CN included the fact that operational costs would be reduced as it deployed further, making it ultimately pay itself back.

I don't think fibre would ever recoup its own costs just from reduced operational/maintenance costs, on eother short or long lines. It's going to need people to be paying for it monthly - which means they've got to want it, and to want to pay more for it. But there's a lot of "free" mindsets that need to be shifted - and investors need to be convinced of that shift first.

And *that* is why I think BT are treating it as something of a loss-leader. They need to show that the service is being taken up.

I think I remember saying a while back its my thoughts that those market 1 exchanges (which mine isnt) that are only supplied by BTw are a cash cow for BT, no LLU isp's to take all that lovely profit from BTw backhaul and no reduced port prices.

Instead of considering the numbers here, what about the logic behind the profit potential? If these exchanges really were cash cows, then wouldn't some other company jump in to grab those profits? They've opportunity to jump in anywhere, and have certainly done it in all those market 3 exchanges. If it was worthwhile... wouldn't they already be there?

Isn't the real fact that those companies *haven't* jumped in. And, because they are only motivated by profit and have no obligation to jump in, we can assume the fact they have chosen to stay away means they will make no profit?

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.
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
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.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:42:40
Print Post

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


[re: billford] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by billford:
I'm sure you're aware in reality that BT don't seem to have followed that methodology...

Absolutely.

Obviously when they changed the plans to cover 67%, they could also change the order within the plans too. And it probably makes sense to (or sense to *someone*, anyway).

And, as I said, it made no reference to exchange locations or service areas/sizes

And there is another good point on Vonga...
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:49:13
Print Post

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


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by bookey:
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.

That's a couple of good points. But where does FTTC handover to BTW?

VoNGA is another interesting issue - as that presumably also has to handover back to BTW - but as part of 21CN voice, rather than broadband.

21CN was all about improving costs... and you'd imagine that VoNGA + cabinet-based DSLAMs (or MSANs) would be a great way to reduce the cost of a lot of those exchanges. Obviously it would require 100% conversion of cabinets... so is this a sign that rural areas might get drawn into *better* FTTC coverage? Hmmm.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:01:38
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:
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.


leics is above 15th now they are barely behind nottingham in size, but thanks for digging this up.

If I understand your theorry right. You are suggesting the increased rollout has effectively set some city areas back that would have got it earlier under the 40% rollout. I dont know when the rollout changed from 40% to 67% but it was the general election month that BT told me my exchange(s) (I never gave them my exchange just the city) was not viable.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 16-Jun-11 22:10:49)

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:04:21
Print Post

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


[re: Anonymous] [link to this post]
 
Thats entirely possible yes.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:05:13
Print Post

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


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
openreach control is only up to the exchange. It still has to get from the exchange to the isp.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:37:42
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:
leics is above 15th now they are barely behind nottingham in size, but thanks for digging this up.

Ah - the cities are very close in size when you compare the populations within the council areas. Something just under 300k, right? However, that census report was based on urban areas that were a single identifiable place.

So for example, the Nottingham urban area includes Beeston, Long Eaton, Gedling & Carlton because they grown together into a single urban area, even though they got a few different council areas within them. In fact, they include Nottingham as one of the case studies, to show how it now includes Ilkeston because of growing developments.

That means they size Nottingham at 666k and Leicester at 440k.

I thought that was also a fair way to consider how BT would want to deploy FTTC. They just want to go for the largest, densest urban area; they don't really care where the councils draw the lines either.

If Leicester were to move up, it would have to overtake Portsmouth, Edinburgh, Brighton, Belfast, Bristol and Sheffield.

Al the same, it shows that the 2 cities are big players, and ought not to be left out of the deployment.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:53:23
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
Of course it still has to go via a ISP but it does not have to go via BT Wholesale.

A provider such as TalkTalk who has a MSAN in a FTTx node exchange can take a in-span handover connection from BT Openreach directly.

ISPs such as Zen, AAISP need to take a feed from BT Wholesale because that is what meets the needs of the smaller and mid range ISPs.

(sorry its late i cant recall the exact name of the interconnect)

Paul
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:01:15
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
ok understood on the sizes.

although with the 15th from your report leics should still be within the original 40% and easily in the 67% if BT were to do on population size.

yeah time will tell if its just a slow rollout for these cities or if they are going to be missed out.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:02:10
Print Post

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


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
correct but the live isp's are using BTw, the LLU players arent in the market yet.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:03:35
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:
That's a couple of good points. But where does FTTC handover to BTW?

VoNGA is another interesting issue - as that presumably also has to handover back to BTW - but as part of 21CN voice, rather than broadband.

21CN was all about improving costs... and you'd imagine that VoNGA + cabinet-based DSLAMs (or MSANs) would be a great way to reduce the cost of a lot of those exchanges. Obviously it would require 100% conversion of cabinets... so is this a sign that rural areas might get drawn into *better* FTTC coverage? Hmmm.


FTTC to BTW is at the serving node for the FTTC connections, most of the large exchange it will be it's self but some of the smaller exchange it will be another 'local' large exchange, even some exchange in London have different backhaul exchanges to the serving exchange area.
IIRC Fibre from the cabs in Putney is being terminated at the Parsons Green exchange.

Rural areas will get great coverage i would expect in 2013-2015 but the bulk of this will be EU or Govt money paying for BT to enable those areas with FTTx, BT get the money, they get to scale down the network overheads.

Penrith in Cumbria is on the list to get FTTC, only 1 or 2 exchanges around Penrith have cabs most are exchange only lines, but also very rural.
BT gets paid to upgrade the network in the ground and you see the exchange replaced with roadside cabinets and fibre ran back to Penrith exchange as the core node for the fibre connections for FTTC in the outlaying villages.

BT wont want to do this fully until they have played more with VoNGA

Paul
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:07:21
Print Post

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


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
TalkTalk are.
Sky are but no public service offering yet.
The others will follow, otherwise they will bleed customers as the FTTx coverage improves (except Leicester tongue)

Also I know Leicester fairly well, I would say it more liable to get more FTTP than FTTC, if you look at the size of the FTTP thus far they are very small pockets, if BT want to hit 25% FTTP they are going to need to cover some large areas.
A bulk of key city centre locations have already be listed as getting FTTC, I would look at the fact Leicester city centre does not have FTTC planned as a good thing.

Edit: Can't spell...

Paul

Edited by bookey (Thu 16-Jun-11 23:09:46)

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:33:35
Print Post

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


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
that would be an eye opener if it happened.

didnt know talktalk had started FTTC services sorry.
Standard User New_Londoner
(member) Fri 17-Jun-11 09:02:16
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Analysis Mason did a report on this, I think for the government so it should be readily available online. It gave suggested coverage based on various % of the population to be covered. It would be interesting to compare its predictions for 66% coverage with those areas where FTTC coverage has already been announced to see if there are any/many differences.

What may people seem to ignore when querying why their area has not yet been included is the small issue of manpower. I wonder whether the deployment to date would make more sense if you take into account where deployments first took place and then whether what happened next mainly focused on nearby areas?

If that is the case, it may well be that Nottingham, Derby etc are not close to other main centres of deployment so will be done when the people involved have finished in say Birmingham. Just a thought, I may be wrong.

---

All opinions expressed by me are my own

BT Infinity
Speedtest result (excluding 2Mbps for BT Vision)
Standard User nelix01
(member) Fri 17-Jun-11 09:40:27
Print Post

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


[re: New_Londoner] [link to this post]
 
New_Londoner,

I noticed on your sig that you link to a line speed result and quote this is excluding 2Mbps for Vision, can I ask what the impact of having vision has on the speedtest results? I only ask as I have vision myself.

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Fri 17-Jun-11 12:32:15
Print Post

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


[re: billford] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by billford:
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).


Look at who Didcot's MP is, and his responsibilities.

Also bear in mind a large proportion of the town is the Ladygrove estate, which is fairly affluent and completely uncabled.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Fri 17-Jun-11 12:55:36
Print Post

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


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Look at who Didcot's MP is, and his responsibilities.


I laughed at that but I expect your logic is correct.
Same applies for Penrith, Cumbria - http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/press-coverage

Paul
Moderator billford
(moderator) Fri 17-Jun-11 13:00:10
Print Post

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


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Look at who Didcot's MP is, and his responsibilities.
Yeah, but he lives in (well, just outside) Wantage tongue


WANTAGE Oxfordshire SMWN FTTC Sep-11

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

[email protected]hinkbroadband.com _______________Planes and Cars and ..._______________BQM & Speed

Edited by billford (Fri 17-Jun-11 13:04:49)

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband moderator but it does not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User New_Londoner
(member) Fri 17-Jun-11 19:49:37
Print Post

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


[re: nelix01] [link to this post]
 
IIRC Vision takes a slice of downstream bandwidth and reserves it for its own use, which should mean that speedtests etc reduce accordingly. I may be wrong but my speedtest results did drop when Vision was activated, which seems to confirm it.

---

All opinions expressed by me are my own

BT Infinity
Speedtest result (excluding 2Mbps for BT Vision)
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Fri 17-Jun-11 21:07:56
Print Post

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


[re: New_Londoner] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by New_Londoner:
IIRC Vision takes a slice of downstream bandwidth and reserves it for its own use, which should mean that speedtests etc reduce accordingly. I may be wrong but my speedtest results did drop when Vision was activated, which seems to confirm it.


I thought the way this kind of thing was supposed to work was that there would be an "assured session" assigned, which guaranteed a certain rate through the network. There is a time-based charge to have this running, so I'd imagine it is only present when you are actually watching a BT Vision channel at the time.

The BT Speedtester has this warning: "If you are running an assured rate session, please be aware that the test will temporarily interrupt your session for upto 30 seconds. Your session will be restored when the test is complete."

I doubt if Speedtest.net can have this effect on an assured session. However, I doubt if you can really get an extra 2Mbps on a line where Speedtest.net already report 37.5Mbps. Not on the 40Mbps FTTC products, anway.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Fri 17-Jun-11 22:41:28
Print Post

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


[re: New_Londoner] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by New_Londoner:
Analysis Mason did a report on this, I think for the government so it should be readily available online. It gave suggested coverage based on various % of the population to be covered. It would be interesting to compare its predictions for 66% coverage with those areas where FTTC coverage has already been announced to see if there are any/many differences.


Brilliant - thanks for that. I managed to find 2 interesting documents....

The first I found was a discussion on rollout of FTTP GPON technology for Ofcom. For *this* thread, on which cities will get fibre, appendix B is most useful: It mentions their "Geotyping", which is their way of classifying the different coverage areas within the UK. It takes the "large urban area" model I used in my earlier post, but overlays it with exchange location. It also takes exchange size into account.

I think this will give us a better model for predicting which exchanges will get fibre.

I'll read this a little more, and come back with a better predictive model for which exchanges are likely to get converted.

The second document is a report on the cost of rollout of fibre (including both FTTC and FTTP). I found this from references in the first.

This goes into further depth on the "geotypes", so includes categories for 100% of UK premises (a total of 27 million).

At a quick glance, it provides a great view of why BT have targetted 67% for now, and why I suspect they'll get a good chunk of the next 20% once subsidies are taken into account.

There is one great quote in there: "... that the fixed costs of deploying new infrastructure far outweigh the variable costs. This means that the cost per home connected is highly dependent on the level of take-up."

That sentence alone probably explains why Infinity is priced at a level to attract people - both back from Virgin, and as a no-brainer upgrade from existing service.

What may people seem to ignore when querying why their area has not yet been included is the small issue of manpower....

Not me. I think manpower is one of the crucial issues. And I think it hits in many subtle ways - probably including core installation, in-house installation, and even targetting of marketing efforts.
Standard User camieabz
(legend) Sat 18-Jun-11 02:20:46
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:
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.


Did some spreadsheet fiddling of my own, using Samknows Regional Stats

Produced the same data in graph format for easier viewing. Got bored cutting all the graphs seperately after a couple, so some are large (1920x1200 monitor here):

Start with

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/imagekey.txt (gives a key to the images)

The images:

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/avpropen.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/avlluops.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/maxlluop.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/btadslen.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/btsdslen.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/unbundle.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/btexstat.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/ispcov1.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/ispcov2.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/ispcov3.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/regcov1.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/regcov2.png

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/regcov3.png

The raw data: http://www.camieabz.co.uk/ispcov/adsldata.png


Why did I do this? Not sure. Seemed like a good idea at the time. smile The graphs fairly put some things in perspective.

If anyone has accurate (assuming Samknows data is accurate) data for ADSL2+ and/or FTTx let me know and I can maybe mess with too. I don't fancy trawling through Samknows exchanges one by one though.

~~~~~~~~~~


© Camieabz 2002-2011

Live BQM

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User nelix01
(member) Sat 18-Jun-11 11:55:50
Print Post

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


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I'm not so sure that your correct, even when watching VOD I can still get a speed-test result of around 38Mbps and an upload of around 8Mpbs.

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to