In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

but we do no what BT want to charge the ISP's and their costing put it at about three times at what the cost should be and clearly if there figure are correct and there is no reason to suspect that they will be that far out BT is pricing them out of the market

No we don't, we know other ISP's want to pay three times less, not that they are over cooking it. Surely Ofcom has seen the make up of the prices?

We DO know other ISP's want to pay less.
We DON'T know BT have tripled the access prices as you (nor anyone else) are party to what goes into that figure.

Please don't say other ISP's have done their sums, that's just not real world.

But why the obsession with HS or Super or fast?

I think most people just want a stable decent speed as I posted above, not super, ultra, lightspeed, why do we need to categorise it at all apart from in terms of Mbps?

A pretty good take up of their 100Mbs products

How many ?

" The 50meg product now holds 118,000 customers, up 29% on the third quarter, but still only 3% of the total customer base. "
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4577-virgin-media...

Edited by yarwell (Tue 12-Apr-11 15:29:38)

It is not difficult to work it out so we know pretty much give or take20% what that cost is

Agreed.

At the moment, I'm on a stable 8meg.

Would I like my exchange to be upgraded to 24meg, yes please.

Would I like my local loop upgraded to FTTC, yes please.

Would I pay extra for the above 2 upgrades, errr nope.

Do I NEED either of the above 2 upgrades, nope.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

But why the obsession with HS or Super or fast?

I think most people just want a stable decent speed as I posted above, not super, ultra, lightspeed, why do we need to categorise it at all apart from in terms of Mbps?

I think a lot of this debate is about the so-called final third, which I would describe as most people who live more than 3km from their exchange resulting in line lengths of 5km+ though thanks to line routing and quality issues, it's perfectly possible to be nearer than that and still not be able to get broadband. Here, for instance.

The other debate is about "what is broadband". If we, well, actually, OFCOM, defined that - I'd suggest 4Mbps down 1Mpbs up is not really some pie in the sky target set by a tech with an interest but perfectly reasonable - and escalating by 1Mbps per year, then we have a basis to start from.

Nothing below that can be sold as broadband. Narrowband, internet access, whatever it's called, but it isn't broadband. Note I do not advocate that price controls go along with that. I think enough people would be annoyed at paying the ever increasing line rental and the same as others for the internet access for a sufficient mass of voices to gather.

I do think it's fair enough that if you want superfast broadband, you might have to adjust your expectations of where you can live. Not just the UK.

Basically, it has to be a cabled area. That's easy enough to check on and you can influence this yourself. There's no such thing as a FTTC area, only FTTC streets and specific addresses, it's as hit and miss as ADSL was and is. Perhaps the availability checker will improve over time.

My random spot check on our nearest town (enabled 09/2010) gives FTTC availability to residentials only and has coverage of about 40%. I'm sure BT have the figures, but I doubt they will be released. All I've heard from them is "We aim for 85% of an exchange area to be covered". I aim to go to the Maldives, Mauritius and Antigua in my lifetime but there's no guarantee that's going to happen.

Personally, I suspect businesses get skipped because a) they have leased lines and b) it's an easier case to plead with the begging bowl later on for taxpayer's money. Maybe I'm too cynical.

I still don't think it's acceptable that such a large percentage of the country can't get broadband (a basic 4Mbps down). It's called the final third, you might argue it's the final quarter, it's not splitting hairs, but only BT really know how many of their customers can get broadband (and I suspect the true percentage would shock quite a few).

For those who live within 3km of the exchange: that portion is served to an acceptable degree by xDSL now. It "will do" in the short term. Those are also the people likely to have access to cable.

It's the rest of the country which is the issue. Personally, I'd love to be able to choose where I live based on where I want to live and not be restricted to a narrow strip of land next to phone exchanges, or a cabled area. There's no way I would move anywhere that isn't cabled again, the risk is just far too high. Not that I won't get superfast broadband. The risk is that I won't get broadband.

So what this thread seems to agree is that the final third will remain the final third to a great degree. And that needs to be tackled. Not because those people need 100Mbps down. They just need broadband. And in this respect, absolutely no progress whatsoever beyond the take up of 3G has been made in the last decade; ADSL2+ was about the <3km customers only. If we leave things as they are, I suspect the next decade will repeat the last one.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

It is not difficult to work it out so we know pretty much give or take20% what that cost is

In terms of pricing that quote itself is priceless. Let Ofcom decide if the pricing is unfair its what they are there for

Edited by deleted (Tue 12-Apr-11 15:49:58)

In reply to a post by yarwell:

A pretty good take up of their 100Mbs products

How many ?

" The 50meg product now holds 118,000 customers, up 29% on the third quarter, but still only 3% of the total customer base. "
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4577-virgin-media...

do you think mass market is the only segment worth selling to? and do sales mean more than profit?

BT are selling infinity 40mbit for exactly the same price as their 20mbit product. So they have spent 1.5billion or so to sell a product for the same price, seems clever?

interesting that you found that business's in FTTC areas dont have it available.

That will go a long way to explaining why my exchange is not deemed viable.

all the short lines on it are business premises. So to enable the residental ones is long runs to the cabinets.

I can understand the need to give openreach competition ni areas with no VM, but what I will say is for anything like that to be viable any such service wouldnt be cheap.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Personally, I suspect businesses get skipped because a) they have leased lines and b) it's an easier case to plead with the begging bowl later on for taxpayer's money. Maybe I'm too cynical.

Hmm not so sure, in Northern Ireland small businesses have certainly taken advantage of FTTC and made huge savings.

Go to the Maldives first its amazing!