In reply to a post by creakycopperline:

so it's 512 kbps till i die eh? thank you BT monopoly free to do as we please market.

So your actually going a lot faster than you were implying, about 10 times faster if I've got my bits, bytes and megabytes correct.

In reply to a post by creakycopperline:

[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/1855322499.png[/IMG]

I still think you should have a faster connection than what you do, given how close you are to the exchange, mind you may be just the time of day - I'm only getting about the same as you at the moment

http://speedtest.net/result/1855392204.png

My best one:

http://speedtest.net/result/1767485387.png Notice the time.

Because there is a universal service obligation on BT and Karoo requiring them to install a phone line for a standard fee (£125) even if it costs the firm up to £3000 to do so.

1. Because you chose to purchase one from a voice service provider.

2. Part of the agreement struck when BT/GPO was privatised. BT as was, and then Openreach, have a Universal Service Obligation to provide telephony across the UK.

The Mbps in the pasted part of Ronski's post is Mega bits per second.

In reply to a post by creakycopperline:

but its not really mb's it's kilobytes

You seem to be having problems with comprehension. One example being the speed test you posted which whilst rating your connection as D+ and SLOWER than 61% of all connections at the same time tells you that it is FASTER than 39% of all connections and I don't see many of that 39% having tantrums and throwing their dummy out of their prams in the way that you have done in this thread. Perhaps taking Business 101 would help you understand how BT, as a commercial company with shareholders whose money it uses for investment, comes to the decisions it does. Economics plays a VERY significant part when BT draws up its investment plans.

.

Let's face facts here, Nick.

Virgin / Telewest / Eurobell have been active in your town for 20 years.

Logic cuts both ways. My money is on Openreach deploying before Virgin.

Crawley has a highly competitive comms market. Fibre is in town from BT, Virgin, SSE, Global Crossing, Viatel, C&W and many more operators.

You chose to move to a 4 year old estate in the part of town where you did...

My village has no bus service after 6pm. No trains. No LLU and no 21C. Very limited gas and mains sewerage.

I kinda like it here though. However, If these services were important to me, I'd move.

FTTC/P will be available to more than half of the population by 2014. If you want it badly, you need to move to where more than half the population lives.

Edited by deleted (Sun 25-Mar-12 20:47:21)

In reply to a post by Moradin:

If you want the ultimate answer....

Its because of the poor decision by politicians to privatise BT in 1982.

ultimately, thats why we are in the terrible position we are in now. We have had a total lack of investment in this utility almost since the day it was privatised. the network remained stagnant for decades. Its a utility that people cannot do without. selling it off was the mistake.
Business is all about making the most profit, for the least investment. hence you don't get a cabinet, but the bloke at the end of the road does.
Its the same concept with the Post Office (our local collection office closed, nearest one 5 miles away now).
or any other service that the government decides.
(Party Political Broadcast bit)

all three current main parties have let you, and the British people down, generation after generation. you just have to open your eyes to see it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there. You say:-

1) BT is lousy because it was privatised.
2) The Post Office is also lousy.

The Post Office has not been privatised. Post Offices are closing, reducing customer access. Telephone lines are not being removed, except from hardly-used telephone boxes. (When was the last time you wanted to use a telephone box, and were unable to find a convenient one? Or even a convenience one).

It seems therefore the privatisation method works better for customers.

we leave our telecoms industry to the free market, then why not our banking system, instead of bailout after bailout.
Robertos It seems therefore the privatisation method works better for customers.
not for customers who are in the final third, and i'm loving the troll accusations, wondered how long it would take for that to come up. why is it when someone points out BT's errors you immediately point to Vigin media
as a person to blame. and to offcom, i know you've said offcom refused openreach to upgrade in the nineties
so did they tell them not upgrade my cabinet?

Edited by deleted (Sun 25-Mar-12 21:20:00)

In reply to a post by Moradin:

If you want the ultimate answer....

Its because of the poor decision by politicians to privatise BT in 1982.

ultimately, thats why we are in the terrible position we are in now. We have had a total lack of investment in this utility almost since the day it was privatised. the network remained stagnant for decades. Its a utility that people cannot do without. selling it off was the mistake.
Business is all about making the most profit, for the least investment. hence you don't get a cabinet, but the bloke at the end of the road does.
Its the same concept with the Post Office (our local collection office closed, nearest one 5 miles away now).
or any other service that the government decides.
(Party Political Broadcast bit)

all three current main parties have let you, and the British people down, generation after generation. you just have to open your eyes to see it.

Quite so.

In the 80s BT offered the government that it would fibre up the country, as long as it was allowed to sell content over the resulting netwrok.

Maggie refused to allow this, citing the 'need for competition' and here we are.

Which makes you wonder what is the more likely reason ...

a) 'need for competition' ... let us all bow down and salute
b) the pal Murdoch, getting Sky off the ground, wouldn't allow it...

Mmmm, I wonder ...