Also look at the party in power - are they the sort that would do something like this?

Short answer is no.

Ofcom's mandate has been promote competition, not promote improvements in QoS. The mantra for decades being that lower prices = competition = better choice = consumer picking best service

Alas consumer in UK just picks who comes in the top 2 or 3 on a price comparison website, which are almost uniquely massive business in the UK

In reply to a post by geordiekris:

The cable network was built for TV services, something which BT's network couldn't offer and thanks to the lack of investment over the years, cannot compete with - this is going to be one of the blocks in getting people to migrate away from VM cable to BT's FTTC service - slower top speeds for those who want them, and a complete lack of a comparable TV service. The only area in which BT have the edge at the moment that I can see is upload speeds and not by any huge margin which forms a key selling point.

WRONG

back in the 80's BT went to Maggie T and said here Maggie we have this great idea we can send tv signals down a telephone line can we roll it out ?

Mrs T who had just sold off all of the cable liscences went oooh hold on a second ahh ok then trial it. So BT did in a place called washington tyne and wear the trial was an absolute success but because Mrs T had sold said cable areas off and the rights to sky and the other now defund operatoe she said no. This tech was using similar if not the same texh that is what we now know as fttp.

so the moral of the story is dont blame BT blame Mrs T.

I'd actually hoped that my posts indicate who I do blame for the situation. And it is indeed that Conservative government, who sold off state assets while glued to the ideology that state = bad, private = good.

We're all still paying for that every time we get on a train. Indeed, even those of us who don't use trains are still paying for that.

Markets = good, monopoly = bad

All we did was exchange a public monopoly over which we could exert some degree of control, for a private monopoly over which we have no control whose lack of investment has held us back and now seriously jeopardises the ability of this country to do business.

I can see both sides of this. And I don't find BT's behaviour surprising. What surprises me are the swathes of people who still think "BT will do it." Can BT do it? Why should BT do it?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Also look at the party in power - are they the sort that would do something like this?

Short answer is no.

Ofcom's mandate has been promote competition, not promote improvements in QoS. The mantra for decades being that lower prices = competition = better choice = consumer picking best service

Alas consumer in UK just picks who comes in the top 2 or 3 on a price comparison website, which are almost uniquely massive business in the UK

And none of this helps BT either, to be fair. Regulation is simply a series of sticking plasters to try to "steer" BT and try to curtial the monopoly we shouldn't have created in the first place.

Having a choice of Plusnet @ 1.5Mbps or Zen @ 1.5Mbps both of which are resold BT Wholesale kit isn't a kind of competition that brings me any real practical benefits.

It's the infrastructure layer that needs competition for progress to be made which is what makes VM/Fujitsu's offer appealing.

Around 85% of the UK has the choice of xDSL via Opal/TalkTalk exchange kit too

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Around 85% of the UK has the choice of xDSL via Opal/TalkTalk exchange kit too

So, if our exchange had an LLU presence I might have a choice of 1.5Mbps on a BT Wholesale product or the dizzying heighs of 2Mbps - maybe at a push - on an LLU product if it can, er, make more of the line...

The weakness is the length and quality of crumbling bell wire used to connect the above to the house.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Cisco just an equipment supplier?

You are joking they are a world class player. They are the largest suplier of Network equipment and have world class R&D. They are critical to this consortium as are Fujitsu. If you think they are just there for the ride you are very wrong they are both critical members of the consiortium

The fact that these tow world class players have come on board gives great credibility to this.

I'm glad you picked up on the least important aspect of what I said.

I don't deny that Cisco are a world-class supplier, and never did. But I think you'll find that they'll supply anyone including BT. Supplying this consortium is absolutely nothing special whatsoever.

What this consortium needs to get going is a core network that gets fibre out to all of BT's cabinets in their area. A minimal core network, and a lot of fibre. And, depending on the routing they use for that fibre, either a lot fo digging of their own, or a lot of access to BT's E-side network ducts. This gets them in the game.

What this consortium needs to be able to survive is to put in place a serious ability to get the fibre out to homes. Either digging their own D-side, or access to BT's network ducts. This gets service (of some kind) to the home.

What this consortium needs to be able to become the vision that you desire is quality and profitability. To get quality, they need to have large pipes and no contention (so now need a decent core network), which takes money.

Virgin got the first two elements, but have dragged their feet at the last. Now they are getting the decent headline speeds that they always should have done, but they frankly don't have a core network to match.

I see a new network (whether from Fujitsu or anyone else) suffering the same problem. They'll be too focussed on 1 and 2, and won't have enough money to do 3 - unless their product gains traction at a much higher pricepoint.

And none of it will be feasible at all if they don't get access to BT's ducts cheaply enough. Interestingly, BT is more critical to this venture than Cisco.

Technology works for people, but at a price.

Final third here, enabled for ADSL only in 2003. Moved in in 2006, house had 2x2Mbps lines from previous occupant.

Then I took one to Max (5.5Meg), left one on fixed speed. Then with a LLU provider arriving second line has gone to 6.5Meg in speedtests. 45dB attenuation.

Work on principle of one line with static IP for business and other for xbox etc

Potentially it may be cheaper for BT to never both rolling out its fibre beyond current plans, thus making this FVMC assortment defacto dominant supplier. At which point pricing may be the issue.

For all we know the pricing may be unattractive, i.e. people getting 1-2Mbps now and paying £15 a month, may not see the point in migrating to a different network that offers 5Mbps for £25, 15Mbps for £30 etc...many posters here would see the benefit, but to be honest people see the jump from £15 a month to £25 and baulk at it.

Sky is the master of managing this, small incremental price rises each year and people often don't notice.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Lots of people talk like this is an extension to the Virgin Media network?

Surely VM are just another buyer of services, if VM has the ability to skew the network roll-out to go where it wants to then that should be seen as anti-competitive

Why? They will largely infill & build out from there existing coverage because that makes the most economic sense as well as benefiting most people. Much of this would be done on a commercial basis. It will be the government/local councils that in conjunction with the Consortium that will decide the rural roll out area (whatever they mean by rural. it tends to be used very loosely)

If the consortium sets up in an area that is not cabled & no ewhere near a cabled area it would costs a lot and take a lot of time & it may take longer to gain a customer base

I would imagine the priority would be to build out from the Cabled areas where BT has not implimented FTTC.

This is intended to be a new network & not repackaging and reselling the BT Offering

if a new network, why are you also talking of an extension to the existing VM coverage?

Your wording makes it sound like this network is really a town fringes solution, rather than serving the multitude of 1000-2000 property villages spread around the UK