The price of Copper

I had never before been affected by the theft of copper cables...

I rarely travel by train so the signal problems have not affected me...

Last week, while at work, my wife asked if there was a problem with the phones???

Now she was at home and I was 20 miles away, so my first reaction was HTFSIK???

Yes the phones were down but since I am on BT Infinity, the Theft of the copper wires only affected the phone and our Internet access was unaffected.


The sooner we get a fibre network the better for us all.


A

Until it is totally Fibre only the thieves will still steal stuff and will take some years for them to realise that the fibre is worthless

The value of all the copper in the bt network is higher than the net worth of the company.

In reply to a post by gazter:

The value of all the copper in the bt network is higher than the net worth of the company.

That is an urban myth ...

I don't understand how thieves would go about stealing the copper lines as they would have to dig up the cabling wouldn't they ?

At the close of business on the Stock Exchange on Thursday 5 April the market capitalisation of the BT Group was £17.33 billion.

They do! Often using dummy-logo'ed vans and fluorescent jackets.

An old trick. Make it look as though you are genuine.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They do! Often using dummy-logo'ed vans and fluorescent jackets.

An old trick. Make it look as though you are genuine.

Flippin' heck, that's cheeky !

It must involve a lot of work.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They do! Often using dummy-logo'ed vans and fluorescent jackets.

An old trick. Make it look as though you are genuine.

Just thought, if I was unlucky enough to get my line disrupted, I assume BT Wholesale is under a USO to get my line working again ?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

At the close of business on the Stock Exchange on Thursday 5 April the market capitalisation of the BT Group was £17.33 billion.

That's about 3.2 million tons of copper... that's a lot of wire, I think MHC is probably right!

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They do! Often using dummy-logo'ed vans and fluorescent jackets.

An old trick. Make it look as though you are genuine.

Flippin' heck, that's cheeky !

It must involve a lot of work.

if probably does,but the rewards are obviously worthwhile, and some peeps may end up with a better ADSL sync after bt replace the cable with new copper , so some may benefit from the old rotting copper being replaced early

In reply to a post by tommy45:

and some peeps may end up with a better ADSL sync after bt replace the cable with new copper , so some may benefit from the old rotting copper being replaced early

I never thought of that !

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

and some peeps may end up with a better ADSL sync after bt replace the cable with new copper , so some may benefit from the old rotting copper being replaced early

I never thought of that !

I did,it also keeps OR and its sub contractors busy too, job creation even,lol

It might be a silver lining if Openreach have to keep, replacing stolen copper they might just realise it would be far cheaper and easier to fibre it all the way. but knowing their track record it'll probably take them a few years to figure that out. plus it's too easy for them.

They identify two access points (manholes). Open up both, attach a winch to one end then sever the 200 pair cables at both ends, drag the cable out and disappear! It takes just a few minutes and they do not even bother closing teh access covers either, so te next car along has two wrecked wheels!

In reply to a post by MHC:

They identify two access points (manholes). Open up both, attach a winch to one end then sever the 200 pair cables at both ends, drag the cable out and disappear! It takes just a few minutes and they do not even bother closing teh access covers either, so te next car along has two wrecked wheels!

most of the bt cables around here are under the footpaths and the access covers seem to be on the footpaths as well , although i don't doubt there will be some under the roads just that there location isn't as obvious

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

At the close of business on the Stock Exchange on Thursday 5 April the market capitalisation of the BT Group was £17.33 billion.

That's about 3.2 million tons of copper... that's a lot of wire, I think MHC is probably right!

there is approx 75 million miles of cable in the BT network.

ahh found it "£2.5bn to £5bn of copper"

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Apr-12 02:47:16)

I don't think its an urban myth about the value of the cable they have in the ground, there's been articles about it from reputable sources in the past.

In reference to www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/22/bt_copper_cable_theft/:

Ten pairs of copper cabling weighs around 132kg per mile. Which by the miracle of multiplication can be seen to be about 10 million tonnes of copper. Which, at current LME prices of just over £5,000 a tonne, is £50bn.

How much would it costs to extract it all though!

the 200 pair cables

Nah, they try and get real big ones,1000 pairs plus. They did the main feed cables for Winnersh Triangle a week Wednesday back. The silly [censored] stole the fibre as well, there would have been a certain sang froid in seeing their faces when they realised !

Post deleted by Sadoldman

Openreach will repair the damage but cable theft is declared Matters Beyond Our Reasonable Control so there is no compensation due to outage.

Someone is doing a nice trade in stolen optical fiber test and splicing kit at moment.
There will always be something worth stealing from a large network like this.

I made a stab at the not so cleverly disguised censor avoidance and whilst I concur with the general sentiment, the way of expressing it is not permitted.

What was very interesting in many areas of Greater Manchester six to 18 months ago, including most of Hazel Grove where I live, was the disappearance of large numbers of the street gutter gratings. These disappearances coincided very closely with the installation by BT sub-contractors of the FTTC cabinets in each area.

Go figure . Nobody in authority seemed to spot the coincidence.

I suspect that would be coincidence Bob, the sub-contractors would have access to nice mint cable if they wanted, why thieve gratings which are only cast, and not worth nearly so much !

Fairly sure that would be a less informed criminal.

The thefts were of such volume as to be reported in local rags, and the locations were spot where cabinets were appearing. I assume nicking the copper when on BT work would have been a little too obvious!

A lot of them took a while to replace. Stocks ran out!

I can believe a coincidence in one area. Not several, and tracking the installation gangs.

AS I still have the original post, it was, to me, not censor avoidance but just a case of fill in your own description of the miserable, thieving, pikeys/people without consideration/retards/gits/or whatever.

I met one person in the Hurley area ... he had seen a "BT van operating" early one evening and when he came back later his car found where an access cover should have been - it was stuck. So, he walked home to call BT and give them a "telling off" and to call a recovery vehicle but there was a problem - no phones and mobile coverage is a little patchy!

A lot of local thieves apparently commit crimes when "travellers" appear in an area, the assumption being the travellers will always be blamed.

I wonder if gangs of grating theives follow cable installers around too, in an effort to deflect blame elsewhere?

Read a story in Private Eye, whereby, the theft of manhole covers in an Eastern European town, coupled with no street lighting, meant serious harm for those who fell foul (!) of the thefts.

It went on to mention how the replacements where being blessed by the local priest !

I wonder if anyone has considered that if cable thefts continue unabated, the cost of repair might well get passed on to the CP's, and then the good folk of this country.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I wonder if anyone has considered that if cable thefts continue unabated, the cost of repair might well get passed on to the CP's, and then the good folk of this country.

Might? It already partially is and the remainder picked up by BT (or other operator) shareholders. It is the same across Telecoms, Railways & Power Distribution.

Someone's having an extra sad day this morning. The use of six asterisks to describe people who steal metal covers as well as cable was in substitute for the noun thieves, but of course could represent whatever the reader had in mind for such persons.

It's only a few months since a young woman fell into an access shaft from which the cover had been stolen. She lay badly injured for many hours and was taken to hospital with broken bones and hypothermia.

And of course we ALL pay for such thefts in the long run.

In reply to a post by Dilbert:

I don't think its an urban myth about the value of the cable they have in the ground, there's been articles about it from reputable sources in the past.

In reference to www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/22/bt_copper_cable_theft/:

Ten pairs of copper cabling weighs around 132kg per mile. Which by the miracle of multiplication can be seen to be about 10 million tonnes of copper. Which, at current LME prices of just over £5,000 a tonne, is £50bn.

That article does nothing to reinforce El Reg's somewhat fragile reputation as a "reputable source"... I checked the links, and their calculations.

Sure, from the manufacturer's spec sheet the cable weighs ~132Kg/mile. However, there's a lot of plastic in a mile of cable, the wire only weighs about 58Kg. That brings the £50 billion down to about £22 billion. And assumes it's plain, untinned copper (which it may be for all I know).

And their valuation of BT at minus £30 billion is somewhat at odds with the Stock Exchange's figure of £17 billion odd. I know who I'd rather believe

But there's a lot of assumptions about the cable... I doubt the 70-odd million miles is much more than an estimate, what the average number of pairs is and whether the old cable is anything like the modern spec is anybody's guess... the "BT vs copper" values come out closer than I expected, but I still favour the "urban myth" opinion.



edit- had to double some figures- I forgot the cable was 10 pairs, not 10 conductors

Edited by billford (Mon 09-Apr-12 10:40:07)

I haven't looked, but I expect the BT Pension Fund deficit has been taken into account. That is being rapidly corrected, and is in any case a mythical figure. As the stock market in general rises, which in time it will, all pension funds' assets increase dramatically.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 09-Apr-12 10:47:15)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I expect the BT Pension Fund deficit has been taken into account.

Agreed, but the worth of anything is what you would have to pay to own it^*. And if you wanted to own BT (ie all the shares in it) it would cost you ~£17 billion!



^* or an appropriate multiple of part of it.

you need seven asterisks for thieves

Openreach access network has an asset value of under £5bn

The Register and other twonks have no clue.

And if you wanted to own BT (ie all the shares in it) it would cost you ~£17 billion!

plus the 30% or greater share price hike when your bid became known

I should have read to the footnote at the bottom of the Guardian article

In reference to www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/23/bt-copper-assets:

Following the revelations of last week's The Register article, attributing a value of £50bn to BT's copper, BT took another look at the methodology used to calculate that value. The 75m miles of cable used in the calculation is correct, but relates to single twisted pairs (not 10-pair cable). Furthermore, the weight of the cable used to deduce the tonnage included the plastic sheathing material. All told then, BT is probably sitting on somewhere between £2.5bn to £5bn of copper...not the £50bn the article had suggested. This is still material (especially in the context of the current fibre rollout which should see 66% of the country receiving much faster broadband speeds, and costing...£2.5bn), but is not quite the magnitude of revelation we had previously been led to believe.

There would have been some people thinking ...

"I wonder how to steal a copper cable?"

And now they know!!!




A

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I wonder if anyone has considered that if cable thefts continue unabated, the cost of repair might well get passed on to the CP's, and then the good folk of this country.

All the more reason to get as much copper as possible out of the network as quickly as possible.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They do! Often using dummy-logo'ed vans and fluorescent jackets.

An old trick. Make it look as though you are genuine.

Flippin' heck, that's cheeky !

It must involve a lot of work.

if probably does,but the rewards are obviously worthwhile, and some peeps may end up with a better ADSL sync after bt replace the cable with new copper , so some may benefit from the old rotting copper being replaced early

makes sense, get adsl service fixed/improved whilst profiting of copper sales

Are you wanting the goverment to fund BT so they can remove all the copper from the network- considering this will take years to remove and the scrap value will proably come up short against the cost of the work.

The main way to tackle metal theft is to regulate the scrap yards more effectively, hence the new legislation being proposed and introduced.

If they cant sell what they steal then the thiefs will likely move onto something else or be arrested while trying to sell their stolen cable.

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Apr-12 17:14:27)

In reply to a post by ccxo:

Are you wanting the goverment to fund BT so they can remove all the copper from the network- considering this will take years to remove and the scrap value will proably come up short against the cost of the work.

Certainly not, we shouldn't give BT a penny to bring their own network up to scratch.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by ccxo:

Are you wanting the goverment to fund BT so they can remove all the copper from the network- considering this will take years to remove and the scrap value will proably come up short against the cost of the work.

Certainly not, we shouldn't give BT a penny to bring their own network up to scratch.

Very true, they IMO have a cheek to charge for adsl services as things are, they make zero guarantees charge isp's when the reported fault is down to interference from a neighboring premise,
The telephony network should be better protected from outside interference , and at the very least be able to disconnect the offending lines from the BT network, should the culprit refuse to co operate with the initial requests, but bt don't give a stuff, so when someone rips them off why should we give a stuff? and of course all the moldy old copper patched up cables should of been replaced with fibre already, it's not as if bt hasn't taken enough wonga over the years to of paid for it, but clearly shareholders are first and foremost with bt

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 09-Apr-12 19:42:00)

In what way does copper 'mold' ?

Lets start a campaign to shut down all AM radio stations around the world

The rich pickings of robbing BT copper is on copper junction cables.

Cut it, see if anyone turns up. If nobody turns up recover tens of kilometres of thick junction pairs and coax.

The same thing is happening on OLO fibre thrown in the hedge at the side of the railway. Cut, see if it's copper, see who turns up.

Fibre is not immune from metal theft. Metal thieves see if it's copper by cutting it and having a look.

Regulating scrap yards is a part of the answer. An answer that deals with amateur attacks from the cable thieving community.

The organised operators will put the copper in a container and weigh in in Ireland.

In reply to a post by partial:

In what way does copper 'mold' ?

the green moldy appearance is caused by oxidation,

I've never spotted any green 'moldy' appearance on any pressurised junctions or esides when I have been machine jointing or twisting it over the last thirty years.

Perhaps you could expand on what experience you have on junction and eside jointing, or pressure runs?

If you are having problems with eside or junction copper 'molding' you should raise this with your local PTO as there is obviously something wrong with your compressor routines.

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Apr-12 21:26:50)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by partial:

In what way does copper 'mold' ?

the green moldy appearance is caused by oxidation,

You asked the above question i gave an explanation of what causes the mold like appearance on copper that's all as for the rest of the stuff you refer to i have no idea about,

copper oxide is red or black.

But they aren't talking about copper oxide.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They are talking about a village in Flintshire.

In reply to a post by ccxo:

Are you wanting the goverment to fund BT so they can remove all the copper from the network- considering this will take years to remove and the scrap value will proably come up short against the cost of the work.

Just to put this into context BT are trying to get us all to worship them over their spending £2.5bln on mostly FTTC, while in 2007 they were wanting to hand £2.5bln to shareholders by buying their own shares back, they got as far as £1.8bln.

So, no, once BT get their head out of their backside and do some serious upgrade rather than piecemeal then they'll see their maintenance costs drop substantially and additional revenue come in from triple play services.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/17/the_economic...

Only allowed to deploy FTTC from 2009, believe the same applied to FTTP

Also am sure that different factions in BT board will have different views on the roll-outs.

OFCOM in their infinite wisdom still hadn't regulated for BT to be in the residential Fibre market. So in 2007 excess cash is returned to investors, just like any other public listed company where you have lots of funds but can't do anything with them.
So they couldn't invest in fibre for residential in 2009 or earlier because apart from trial areas, they would be deemed in breach of regulations designed to protect the cable companies.

the green moldy appearance is caused by oxidation

atmospheric CO2 or SO2 actually, the correct term is "verdigris" and it's often largely copper carbonate.

I had to think about what you said carefully. Then it occurred to me they'd thieved the copper cable somewhere between the cab and the exchange. Cheeky blighters. lol

The sooner we go to fibre the better like you say. From what I've experienced though the digital phone technology sucks, which is a bit [censored] considering it should be better than traditional. It could be a case of us all moving to Skype type systems where we can better define our call quality.

they were wanting to hand £2.5bln to shareholders

it's their money, they own the company after all.

I use a BT VOIP service alongside a traditional copper provided line and both have good and bad points. Overall there is little to choose between them. However, comparing BTs VOIP and Skype - the VOIP service wins hands down on audio quality, latency. I use VOIP worldwide and all anyone does is call my UK number and it rings on phone, PC and when up and running my mobile.

Exactly ...

Another case of everyone blames BT but in reality it is OFCOM.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

they were wanting to hand £2.5bln to shareholders

it's their money, they own the company after all.

They do indeed, and can monetise that by selling their shares. There's no entitlement to the company's earnings else dividends would be guaranteed.

In reply to a post by TheManStan:

OFCOM in their infinite wisdom still hadn't regulated for BT to be in the residential Fibre market. So in 2007 excess cash is returned to investors, just like any other public listed company where you have lots of funds but can't do anything with them.
So they couldn't invest in fibre for residential in 2009 or earlier because apart from trial areas, they would be deemed in breach of regulations designed to protect the cable companies.

BT didn't have lots of excess cash nor excess funds. They were merely under pressure from the shareholders to give them money to prop the share price up.

Had BT shown any kind of intention to deploy fibre they'd probably have had the regulation in place. As it was once they actually did state their intentions the regulation for FTTC came reasonably quickly.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Exactly ...

Another case of everyone blames BT but in reality it is OFCOM.

See above. Why would Ofcom regulate on something BT have shown no intention to offer? You do know that BT approach Ofcom with new products and ask for rulings on them, Ofcom don't just stare into a crystal ball and decide what BT are going to do and pass down regulation on it in advance right?

reality is somewhere in there,

I suspect once BT Group realised it was able to have cash for investment, it had a battle between the dividends now and for a few years, until they are left behind totally and a new upstart sneaks in...a common large company story.

And the more tech literate side of the group that wanted to lobby for ability to do fibre and can see the writing on the wall for a pure copper local loop.

In short BT is in a transition phase, for areas like Jersey this is easier due to small size and different regulatory environment.

There would also have been the debate over whether Ofcom would enforce wholesale on BT, at a time when its largest competitor is a closed network, one can see this may have delayed product launch for some time.

BT has been working on VDSL for donkey's years anyway, and unless someone found a way to deploy fibre for £200 per property across the UK, it was always going to be deployed as a pre-cursor to fttp on a large scale.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Only allowed to deploy FTTC from 2009, believe the same applied to FTTP

Also am sure that different factions in BT board will have different views on the roll-outs.

Only actually announced any intention to do so in July 2008, Ofcom gave permission less than a year later. Timescales probably related given Ofcom kinda, you know, needed to know that BT wanted their Enterprise Act undertakings varied.

From the document of 11 June 2009 which gave regulatory approval:

On 22 September 2005 British Telecommunications plc (�BT�) offered, and Ofcom accepted, a set of undertakings (�the Undertakings�) pursuant to section 154 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the �Enterprise Act�) in lieu of a reference of certain markets to the Competition Commission in relation to the provision of fixed telecommunications.

If you could give some indication of how Ofcom were to know how BT were planning on deploying the fibre so that they could regulate on it that'd be great, I'm struggling. Had BT gone for a point to point fibre solution delivering purely strands of fibre to the home and allowing physical unbundling it would've been a quite different set of regulatory requirements compared with Openreach operated FTTC MSANs and GPON hardware.

As ever the devil is the detail, and without any of us being privy to the meetings we don't know when it all started.

Perhaps we should look forward, rather than back?

Even knowing it'd be an FTTC solution wouldn't really have helped. Who operates the MSANs? Who runs the OSS? Any special arrangements for OLOs to be able to viably SLU?

As I remember it BT went to pains to point out their plans were subject to appropriate regulation, pressuring Ofcom from the outset. I seriously doubt this was a dramatic change in strategy.

The point is that BT made a conscious decision to return cash to shareholders rather than to invest in their network at the time. Nothing to do with Ofcom or anyone else. When they decide to perform a fairly minimal level of investment they applied the usual pressure and Ofcom swiftly acquiesced.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

As ever the devil is the detail, and without any of us being privy to the meetings we don't know when it all started.

Perhaps we should look forward, rather than back?

I could find out via an FoI?

Tricky to look forward when large swathes of the country, urban, sub-urban and rural, are ignored while the same company that was happy to offer its entire NGA budget to prop up its share price is so desperate to suck on the taxpayer's teat.

So if one teleco is ignoring them surely another can market to that gap?

Virgin Media took many years to get its network to where it is, do we expect Openreach to get a fttc/p network to everyone inside three years from the start?

Why not chase for public money, if it is available? Realistically which teleco out there has the capacity to do a similar size roll-out?

Thales? Fujitsu?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Lets start a campaign to shut down all AM radio stations around the world

Turn off all the street lights at night they are the #1 source of interference where I live because of the overhead phone lines. My BB connection normally has a SNR of around 7dB but as soon as the street lights come on it drops to around 3.5dB.

Nothing illegal with giving shareholders a dividend though is there?
Perhaps it was seen as a sweetner to try and avoid share price drops and thus less money available for the plans?

BT is no saint, but then name a company that is?

Err... not in this case. This was a specific restriction placed on BT by OFCOM to protect cable companies from competition. If you look at the variations to regulation they all pertain to the 2002 Enterprise Act, which is competition law.

OFCOM here decides whether BT's SMP has been diluted sufficiently that when it operated in the market they didn't overwhelm the competition. And we still don't know when the process really started.

Edited by TheManStan (Tue 10-Apr-12 11:33:41)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by yarwell:

they were wanting to hand £2.5bln to shareholders

it's their money, they own the company after all.

They do indeed, and can monetise that by selling their shares. There's no entitlement to the company's earnings else dividends would be guaranteed.

I agree with you on this as well so +1.

In reply to a post by MHC:

They identify two access points (manholes). Open up both, attach a winch to one end then sever the 200 pair cables at both ends, drag the cable out and disappear! It takes just a few minutes and they do not even bother closing teh access covers either, so te next car along has two wrecked wheels!

Thanks for that as it explains how it's done not that I'm interested in doing it lol

I'm just curious as to whether using a winch would attract peoples attention ?

I'm just curious as to whether using a winch would attract peoples attention ?

Dosnt seem too. How do you identify genuine contractors from theives? You cant unless you start asking questions and who wants to do that? If the police are called during an attack (rare) the theives are gone.
Many attacks are less sofisticated whilst others are well thought out and implemented.

In reply to a post by TheManStan:

Err... not in this case. This was a specific restriction placed on BT by OFCOM to protect cable companies from competition. If you look at the variations to regulation they all pertain to the 2002 Enterprise Act, which is competition law.

OFCOM here decides whether BT's SMP has been diluted sufficiently that when it operated in the market they didn't overwhelm the competition. And we still don't know when the process really started.

Per the rest of my post how exactly were Ofcom to know what needed varying until BT presented products?

I'm familiar with the variations, they are mostly around Openreach operating active network, Ofcom aren't psychic, how were they to know what BT needed until BT presented their plans?

When BT presented plans they had regulatory certainty in a year, how exactly are Ofcom to blame for BT having no interest in fibre nor plans outside of greenfield until 2008?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So if one teleco is ignoring them surely another can market to that gap?

Virgin Media took many years to get its network to where it is, do we expect Openreach to get a fttc/p network to everyone inside three years from the start?

Why not chase for public money, if it is available? Realistically which teleco out there has the capacity to do a similar size roll-out?

Thales? Fujitsu?

None as they lack the scale and tax concessions BT receive.

The simplest solution to me would seem to be to modify the USO to require a fibre based service to all unless the cost were above the current USO cost. Seems reasonable enough to me given the current USO.

That's another story of course around a mid-20th century USO in the 21st century.

In reply to a post by LeJimster:

I had to think about what you said carefully. Then it occurred to me they'd thieved the copper cable somewhere between the cab and the exchange. Cheeky blighters. lol

The sooner we go to fibre the better like you say. From what I've experienced though the digital phone technology sucks, which is a bit [censored] considering it should be better than traditional. It could be a case of us all moving to Skype type systems where we can better define our call quality.

Your phone line is almost certainly VoIP from the exchange onwards, the only change would be digital transport from exchange to home which will be over a nailed up 64kbps channel so offer no quality difference at all.

If you're in a 21CN telephony area or connected to a fully unbundled LLU service you will, 100%, be on a VoIP service from the exchange.

and cue complaints from Virgin Media et al who would claim this is anti competitive. Dont forget wireless and satellite that is looking at BDUK as a source of five years business

Squaring a USO for broadband with the competition desires will be difficult.

Its too late to do a true alt-loop, the time would have been before Openreach was created, but in 2006 the pressure for this was less, it was more about LLU access

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

and cue complaints from Virgin Media et al who would claim this is anti competitive.

Which would immediately be rejected as the network is open access. If such complaints were to be entertained it would permit complaints over BT's existing USO.

In 2006 there was no reason for Openreach to invest in the network. The return was poor. Better off stuffing cash under the mattress or returning cash to shareholders.

The return on renting out FTTC is much better and worth the investment. Hence the rush to FTTC and the reluctance of many players that are used to paying peanuts to retail it.

In reply to a post by Ribble:

I'm just curious as to whether using a winch would attract peoples attention ?

Doesnt seem too. How do you identify genuine contractors from theives? You cant unless you start asking questions and who wants to do that? If the police are called during an attack (rare) the theives are gone.
Many attacks are less sophisticated whilst others are well thought out and implemented.

Yes I think you are right on this.

In reply to a post by partial:

In 2006 there was no reason for Openreach to invest in the network. The return was poor. Better off stuffing cash under the mattress or returning cash to shareholders.

The return on renting out FTTC is much better and worth the investment. Hence the rush to FTTC and the reluctance of many players that are used to paying peanuts to retail it.

It's also a delicious LLU competitor - BT get further involvement in the product so can charge more than for a plain copper loop.

It's common to do pre-applications (informal if you like), because full applications are expensive, onerous and laborious. These give you a general yes we'll think about it or no the time is not right answer. And OFCOM will have been considering the impact on VM (they've only looked vaguely healthy in the last 3-4 years)

So it gets to the point where they finally say yes and you do a full application.

I don't expect OFCOM to be prescient, but i'd bet you BT has been asking every year since Bland made the were interested in VDSL statement back in 2007. Especially, since plenty of incumbents on the continent have been happily rolling out VDSL based tech since the mid 2000s. However, they are likely not to have been ready, as OR was "created" in 2006 and they'd have been busy separating their systems from BT and trying to get their 21CN thingy to work. So, a 2008 application with a 2009 consult/variation sounds perfectly right to me timeline wise.

More or less what I said. Plain old LLU doesn't return enough cash to invest.

It doesn't even contribute to staff pensions. Nobody likes putting their hard earned, tax paid money into losing money subsidising other players. Far better to not invest and take the money out.

FTTC has stimulated massive investment because the sums add up, a return can be made and the punters are crying out for it.

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Apr-12 22:00:02)

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

In reply to a post by Ribble:

I'm just curious as to whether using a winch would attract peoples attention ?

Doesnt seem too. How do you identify genuine contractors from theives? You cant unless you start asking questions and who wants to do that? If the police are called during an attack (rare) the theives are gone.
Many attacks are less sophisticated whilst others are well thought out and implemented.

Yes I think you are right on this.

In the last few years, since I've been posting here, there have been a couple of cases of complete loss of service from exchanges due to nicking of the cables feeding the building.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In the last few years, since I've been posting here, there have been a couple of cases of complete loss of service from exchanges due to nicking of the cables feeding the building.