So please tell me who else could have done a wholesale service that could be sold within the cost brackets and would give them a profit? How many altnets provide wholesale access to all at competitive prices?

I am not defending BT. That does not change the fact that it would have been very difficult and unlikely for anyone else to do this. This may be because of BT already having so much in the ground but that is history and BDUK wasn't in a position to change that.

The BDUK procurement was poor but given the restrictions on EU goverment procurements it was probably as good as it was going to get. The changes needed are in regulation and procurement rules but working within the current rules who else was going to win?

In reply to a post by ian72:

Had that money have gone to anyone else then it would have been a true monopoly. The fact it is BT and they are regaulted by Ofcom then they are required to wholesale the products to hundreds of other ISPs and the pricing of that wholesale service can be regulated to drive competition. Therefore you actually will have far more choice available than if the money had gone to any other provider currently operating in the UK.

Indeed, they will have the awesome choice of almost the exact same connection from an entire plethora of retail operators.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jul-14 16:41:37)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Indeed, they will have the awesome choice of almost the exact same connection from an entire plethora of retail operators.

Nevertheless that's far more choice than those with a VM connection or for that matter one provided by Hyperoptic or Gigaclear. It's those small differences that differentiate the various ISPs and hence why more than just one exist.

In reply to a post by gah789:

Even then, there is no requirement on what the retail margin should be - which is why TT complain about a margin squeeze.

Ofcom say ... no grounds for action.

Update note: 19 June 2014

Ofcom has investigated TalkTalk�s complaint under the Competition Act 1998, and has provisionally decided there are no grounds for action. This investigation is separate from the new rules we are proposing for BT under the European telecoms framework today. BT, TalkTalk and third parties whom Ofcom has accepted as having an interest in the investigation will be invited to make written representations on Ofcom's provisional decision.

End of update note.

You know, as the OP on this (and other posts where different questions were asked of this community in which similar pro/anti BT/BDUK posts have been made) I have been surprised, and intrigued by the passion surrounding the whole BT/BDUK scenario...

..I class myself as an 'end user with interest but limited ability to fully understand the technical nuances'.

While there are claims and counter claims of what competition really is, I tend to feel that if the plumbing is BT then the retailer is just window dressing - no different from the 'competition' the Tories brought in on the railways: If I want to go from London to Plymouth I have to use First Great Western. My only 'choice' is if I book my ticket through a number of retailers, each of which might or might not have some whimsical offer or incentive at any given time. The end result is if I want to travel on that line then when I travel, and how reliable that journey is, is dependent on one government decided organisation. So there is no real choice. Not really.

I see the provision of 'high speed' internet as the same. Yes, I can choose from a plethora of ISP retailers, but at the end of the day what I'm really looking at is +/- a couple of pounds each month for the same thing. BT is the fibre equivalent of First Great Western. I have no choice.

From a consumer's 'helicopter view' I see that other nations across the world - nations who's governments are driving consumer access - are managing to instigate services that (on the surface) appear to provide a much better technology for their citizens.

A UK Government target of 24Mb connections, for an economy as rich and diverse - and geographically concentrated - as ours, is an international embarrassment. We're about to see the start of 4K TV distribution. UHD TV is likely to be an application that will draw consumer interest (yes, I know TV set prices are way too high to suggest them flying of the shelves of Currys just yet, but they are falling and will continue to). The 24Mb infrastcruce that Ed Vaizey and his Livingstone mate are so very proud of will very soon start to creak. And that's just one application.

I suspect the inevitable creaking would be less audible if a different approach had been taken - if somebody had had a bit more of an appetite to put the needs of citizens before the asks of BT.

Sure, if Gigaclear (or a different AltNet) had fibred up my village then I'd have no choice, but at least I'd be on a bullet train, and not a rusting old cattle truck. Rather no choice and a 1Gb connection than a no choice (except perhaps for a M&S voucher here or there) and an "up to 40Mbs" connection.

Feel free to pull me to pieces. I suspect any disagreements will be from a technical PoV - none of which I'll be able to agree or disagree with.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Out

Instead of using the railway as an analogy, (as it isn't really privatised - just an occasionally reviewed rolling stock monopoly), think of the road network and taxi firms.

They all use the same road system, but the quality, comfort and speed of the service can be vastly different, even with similar prices . That even applies with the black cabs in London but perhaps not to the same extent as elsewhere.

Re other countries, there are a lot of misleading statistics about. There are a few reports on the subject each year in the thinkbroadband News Articles. These look a little deeper into the stats.

The overall impression I get is that compared to elsewhere UK coverage is high, speeds not bad, and the FTTx rollout impressive. Which is a far cry from what you and I are told by the mainstream media.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Instead of using the railway as an analogy, (as it isn't really privatised - just an occasionally reviewed rolling stock monopoly), think of the road network and taxi firms.

They all use the same road system, but the quality, comfort and speed of the service can be vastly different, even with similar prices .

My point exactly - if the M1 doesn't have enough lanes, has 20% in a contraflow system and is covered in so many potholes that no matter how good your suspension is it's going to be a bumpy ride, then at the end of the day your ability to get from London to Sheffield in a timely manner is only marginally impacted by the vehicle you're in. You might feel dead special being in a Jag, or feel smug that you're doing it on the cheap in a 'tax free' Prius, but it'll still take you way too long to get to where you need to be.

We should - across a number of our public (but privately owned) services - focus more on the underlying need, and less on the superfluous detail like seat coverings, cute typefaces, 'enticing' **cough** offers, comfort (however defined) and an illusion of 'choice'. The amount of government schemes or privatisations that can genuinely be showed to have created true and proper consumer choice is very very limited.

Anyway, I'm off to source a new water supplier...

That's exactly the opposite of what I said, and I think you know it .

Yes, I'm disagreeing with you - if the infrastructure is set then the 'service wrapper' can only do so much.

24Mb is never going to be be 1Gb.

3 congested lanes on the M1 is never going to be a 5 lane super highway.

First Great Western is unlikely to ever offer a 2 hour service from London to Plymouth (I know, there are Network Rail issues that they are dependent on)

Oh, and don't get me started on black cabs...

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jul-14 21:20:25)

BT only supply part of the service.

The support, additional services (like email, hosting, IP provision, etc), backhaul, interconnects, ability to tweak target noise margins on ADSL services, etc are all provided by the ISP and can be very very different.

You can see this in many past reports. Look at all of the complaints about performance and service in the past about talktalk.

There are many parts of this and the end user connection is only one part of the puzzle. It is a very important part but even so there are a lot of other components to differentiate ISPs.

None of this differentiation can be done with providers that don't wholesale. There are differences between ISPs or all of us would just select the cheapest because cost would be the only thing to go on. And there is a wide range of pricing from ISPs with top tier ISPs being potentially 20 times more expensive than the bargain basement ones.

EDIT : A final thought. You will also see many people complain that their throughput is nowhere near their sync speed (they could have a sync of 20Mb but only get 1Mb throughput). This is because of lack of backhaul investment - many cheaper ISPs will heavily content the backhaul. So, if you had a complete monopoloy you could have a 1Gb service that has the backhaul contended so far that you might only get a few meg throughput - and no choice over moving to someone that has better backhaul.

Edited by ian72 (Wed 02-Jul-14 08:29:27)