Does Sam really know? What does s/he know?

Hi there,

Taxpayer money is currently being used to give BT a monopoly on my cabinet (Haywards Heath 38). The concrete foundation is in, so I suspect the cabinet will be there soon. It's been a long time coming, so anticipation of this I just checked availability for my line on the SamKnows website (thinking it might give insight into a 'go live' date)

I entered my phone number and postcode and I'm told that FTTC is not currently available in my area. No great surprise given that the cabinet isn't physically there yet. However, when I click on the 'BT FTTP' tab I get a green tick and am told that it's available.

How can this be? Does the FTTC check look at the cabinet level, but the FTTP look at the exchange level?

Just curious.

Thanks

Use the BT Wholesale DSL checker www.dslchecker.bt.com
This will tell you what services are available to you.

Taxpayer money is currently being used to give BT a monopoly on my cabinet

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.

As far as samknows goes there database for UK doesn't seem to be as good as it was many years ago - as per the other response use BTs checker as it will be more accurate.

EDIT: Just check what Sam actually says for another address. It states FTTP is available in the area - I believe that means there are some properties attached to that exchange that have FTTP not that the specific line is FTTP capable.

Edited by ian72 (Tue 01-Jul-14 13:49:03)

Cabinet P55 looks to have FTTP delivered to the 8 postcodes via the West Sussex project

No date but it is planned for cabinet 38, but remember you do not have to order from BT, but can order from 80+ providers including TalkTalk, Sky, PlusNet and others.

Hmm, that's even more confusing...

Tells me numerous ADSL products are available. It also tells me 'WBC Fixed Rate' and 'Fixed Rate' are available. Both have a Downstream Line Rate(Mbps) of 1, with all other values being "--". But the right hand columns does say 'Available'

It also says 'Copper Multicast' is available.

I have no idea what any of these mean. Can you shed any light on them?

Thanks

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.

Sorry, I was being provocative. Was expecting to be partially flamed. Silly of me

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jul-14 13:54:10)

Not really flaming... But it is a common misconception that giving the money to BT is a lock in whereas it is probably about the best option for UK users if you want choice. Had it of gone to most of the Altnets you would have had far more limited choice over suppliers - but I think you seem to already know that.

WBC is ADSL2+ service from BT Wholesale, you may also have ADSL2+ from Sky and TalkTalk using their own kit available.

Copper Multicast is a way of broadcasting TV IP streams to you efficiently and is used by BT YouView/Vision boxes in addition to the Freeview signal

Gotcha.

So SamKnows not a huge amount, and the BT Wholesale site neither confirms or denies a huge amount.

You can defend BT but you really ought to make an effort to understand the relevant legal framework. BT does have an effective monopoly over the local distribution system and its charges for use of the copper loop are regulated. Alternative providers such as VM wish to avoid use of the monopoly infrastructure as far as possible because they have no control over the quality of service offered. This is where the dispute about BDUK arises, because it entrenched BT's control over local distribution rather than promoting alternative distribution systems.

With respect to wholesale services, only BT's charges for DSL access at Market A exchanges (now less than 10% of the market) are regulated. For the rest it can charge what it likes provided that it acts in a non-discriminatory manner - this involves endless procedural detail but no price caps. The same is true for all FTTC services.

Anyone - BT or an altnet - accepting public subsidies for broadband infrastructure is required to give wholesale access to their facilities in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. That is why VM did not participate in the BDUK process, since it did not want to open up its local distribution network. Even then, there is no requirement on what the retail margin should be - which is why TT complain about a margin squeeze. In practice, resellers want a national deal so that even KCOM attracts almost no wholesale customers.

All of this is further blurred by the fudged lines between BTOR, BTW and BTR with respect to the BDUK programme. There are two reasonable complaints on competition grounds. The first is the lack of transparency about BDUK contracts. Does anyone seriously think that BT would not have bid had there been a condition that all contracts would be published? The second is that it is a fundamental principle of policies to deal with market dominance that contracts should not be designed in a way that encourages a winner takes all outcome. Think Sky and Premier League TV rights. Yet this principle was simply ignored in setting up the BDUK process. At a minimum it should have been a condition that BT could not be awarded more than 50% of the value of the contracts.

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)

I really don't know enough to counter that, so will have to take your word for it.

OK, so now I need to decipher which ISP is right for me... Looks like a total mine field. So many variables - most or all of which seem out of reach and/or comprehension of a lowly consumer like me.

It is complex and there can be a number of nuances. However, there are probably a fairly small number of ISPs that most people would recommend depending on the requirements.

If you let us know what is most important to you (ie budget, static ip, performance, quality of support, extras such as BT Sport, YouView, etc) then suggestions can be made. Also, do you currently have Sky TV?

Current top contenders will probably be in the list of BT, Sky, Plusnet, TalkTalk, IDNET, AAISP and I am probably missing some?

The selection will depend on those priorities.

Also - take a look in the "Which ISP (Residential)" board and you'll get an idea of previous conversations around selecting ISPs.

Edited by ian72 (Wed 02-Jul-14 08:42:40)

BT Sport and YouView are less important (YouView appears to be on it's last legs). I'm not with Sky and am unlikely to be.

Due to iPlayer, Netflix and iTunes movie streaming, and the fact that I have 2 Macs that back up to the cloud I need an unlimited package.

So, priorities are: good speed and lack of throttling/restrictions. I also work from home and make calls over Skype/WebEx, so if there's something there that requires something specific to make it more reliable then that'd be a priority. Good service and support should be a given. Clearly offshore help lines don't instil confidence.

Budget is a medium priority - I don't mind paying more, but within reason.

Will also check out the Which ISP board.

Thanks

For UK support with unlimited the obvious choice would be Plusnet. Their support has had some issues recently but the noise seems to be dying down. They also are active here and the guys on here tend to be able to get things fixed quite quickly.

They don't do "throttling" but they do prioritise important traffic. So, if you are heavily using the connection then the Skype traffic should get prioritised over less time sensitive traffic.

Someone will also probably mention they are part of BT but they have their own support and network services and operate as a separate business unit.

BT are a potential option but oversees call centres and a lot of people don't like BT (even though they are, I think, still the biggest ISP).

IDNet may be an option but I have no personal experience of them. I am sure a few other names will pop up from other people as well.

IDNet are fine. I went to them for my first FTTC connection but at the end of my 12 months moved to Plusnet, paying far less. I've not really seen any difference except the volume of problems with Plusnet are higher. Not surprising seeing as Plusnet have somewhere around 740,000 customers, most of them retail. IDNet I doubt have one tenth, maybe even one hundredth of that (retail).

My connection has always been fine. Eleven months in I upgraded and happily restarted my eighteen months. That's nearly up now, but I shan't be looking around.

Our cabinet is now live.

Think I'll go with PlusNet, which smarts a little given they are owned by BT

Thanks to all for the tips, info, education and advice

yu are looking for a serivice provider that can offer you fttc (thats it)
by using the BTW cheker yu can get a view about what speed you could get now you need t fund a serice prover which will give you what your want , in terms of content /. price point and chnoice -- as opposed to X (take it or leave it )