And if the government hadn't interfered how many more complaints would there have been that areas weren't covered?

And if the suppliers didn't do wholesale then effectively it means there is a single ISP and therefore zero competition at any level. That would have been a recipe for disaster in my opinion. And what happens if that company then goes bust as happened to some of the previous wireless companies - the users then are left with no service whatsoever.

At least with a wholesale offering there is a level of competition with different offers from different ISPs.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

VM would not be investing this sort of money without seeing a return on it

Oh I don't know. That's what they did for the first ~20 years

Edited by Andrue (Mon 16-Feb-15 14:25:05)

Zero competition... so you are saying the wholesale process is truly competitive?

As i see it if the infrastructure isn't there then nobody gets the benefit of this arrangement.

If it is there but poor performing then it will be a poor performer regardless of provider.

Openreach / BT group are a highly profitable organisation who have spent Billions on sports rights alone recently, why did the tax payer have to fork out ~£2Bn , so far, to subsidise this?

The industry would of met the demand on its own, that is true competition , something the BDUK process has strived to destroy / marginalise with full EU backing.

Would you view other industries the same? a village with a single shop and/or pub , should the government subsidise competition there too? , Single track roads, should government subsidise replacing them with A roads ? After all the people in major towns have them.

As for companies going bust, take a look at how many small "wholesale" ISP's have gone to the wall over the years. The billing system for wholesale favours large organisations at the expense of the small providers.

BT retail are busy buying up sports rights and other stuff so they can provide something other wholesale providers cannot (not as cheap at least). Their monopoly on the database of all the phone lines/properties with them in the country means they can and do steal customers from other wholesale providers when people move home etc.

A typical conversation is
"I am moving house, i need to move/close my phone line.."

BT sales dept - certainly, we can set up your Broadband at your new address for you so it is ready for you. would you like us to do that?

then (insert arbritrary discount here) as incentive if the customer says they are using a different provider .

It is not a genuinely competitive process at all and once the infrastructure is entirely OR and LLU is all but a distant memory then the stranglehold will be complete.

Next you will be telling me that gas and electric is a genuine competitive marketplace

If the government had not interfered then the industry would of fed the market itself, competition would of been there and the potential of fixed wireless and Virgins cable investment for example would of encouraged BT to spend their profits, as they should, on upgrading their kit.

not OUR money from home and business tax payers.

In reply to a post by ian72:

And if the government hadn't interfered how many more complaints would there have been that areas weren't covered?

And if the suppliers didn't do wholesale then effectively it means there is a single ISP and therefore zero competition at any level. That would have been a recipe for disaster in my opinion. And what happens if that company then goes bust as happened to some of the previous wireless companies - the users then are left with no service whatsoever.

At least with a wholesale offering there is a level of competition with different offers from different ISPs.

Funny, eh - I did a similar search ... but I don't have contacts in BT to ask opinions of. He did seem to be more focussed at things running over the entire network, rather than the network itself, or even just the access network.

For the access face of the architecture group - I got the impression that was Kevin Foster.

But, taking into account small snippets of information dotted around, what Neil says does seem to fit with the direction that BT are now heading ... a way that seems to be emphatically towards G.fast and away from FTTP.

Looking back, I think the first really positive emphasis came from the evidence to government a couple of months ago...

Here are two answers given in evidence to the DEFRA committee on rural broadband...

Q36

In reference to data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedo...:

Sean Williams: "We are delivering 80 Mbps broadband from our current fibre-optic solution�fibre to the cabinet and copper from the cabinet."

[...]

"Over the next few years, as I was describing earlier to your colleague here, technology will change. We will be delivering faster speeds on this kind of architecture. We expect the speeds we are able to deliver off this infrastructure to continue to grow. Even since the time that we started this�our own fibre deployment only started in 2009, so we have been at it five years�the speed we are delivering from our solution has already doubled. It was 40 Mbps to start with, it is 80 Mbps now, and it will continue to grow.

We do not see any need or case in the foreseeable future to have a solution that says, �Fibre to the premises everywhere�. It does not cost-in; it takes far too long; it is much beyond the requirements, and there are much better lower-cost solutions to get to faster speeds.

We just do not think that the fibre-to-premises solution is the right answer. It is just too expensive and too time-consuming, and what we are delivering is already much more than what everybody needs from a broadband connection, and we will continue to improve as the years go on.

Q37

In reference to data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedo...:

Emma Lewell-Buck: "So you do not envisage having to replace all the copper ones with fibre-optics?"

Sean Williams: "No, we do not."

That was a huge strategy statement. At the time, I read it as being positive about FTTdp, but looking back it seems even more emphatic.

You seem to have misread or ignored what I have written.

If there is a single, non-wholesale provider then there is no choice for the consumer at any level (well, except for something or nothing). As far as I can see your solution is not that competitive with Virgin/BT (where those are available). If you were the only provider available in my area then I would need to be paying £80 + VAT per month to even get close to what I have and my current provider is £20 per month (plus line rental at £14).

With ADSL/VDSL available I can get anything from line rental + free (Sky/Talktalk) to £100's per month for the top end providers. That seems to be competition? It may be competition based on a wholesale model from one provider but that provider is also required to do certain things to meet competition requirements - again, you can argue they aren't working but they do exist.

Allowing things to happen on their own would mean that a fair chunk of the country would most certainly not have been getting reasonable cost solutions for the next few years.

And yes, wholesaling is only generally possible for the larger companies. But, it is only those companies that seem to get the economies of scale to get costs down to what people in this country seem to want.

I don't agree with the way the EU procurement has been done and the end result but if it is a choice between that or nothing then I'll make do with the EU route.

BT Sport is separate - it isn't wholesale and there are Chinese walls between the departments - retail has to make it's own profits/business case and presumably find that Sport pays. That money could not be used for increased rollout as it would cross the Chinese wall. It is an incorrect argument.

Plus, why wouldn't BT Retail sell their products to people. It's not as if Sky, Talktalk, Virgin, etc do anything different when people move or try to leave - standard industry practice.

And Virgin's investment has only just been announced, is over the next 5 years and there was no belief or expectation that was going to happen years ago when BDUK tender was put out to EU. Question is, would Virgin have done that if not for the injection to the market that BDUK provided which has undoubtedly raised the profile of high speed broadband? And how many not-spots do you think Virgin's money will cover? Bet it is a very low percentage of their rollout that don't already get other high speed broadband.

bob more mis ./ disonfirmaion

the business has investied 2.5bn in commerial programme and cira additional 1bn in BUK as state money has to be matched -- but either your not aware / dont care of that fact

FYI VM network is not wholesle its virgin so it has a monopoly on what it charges for what

In reply to a post by ian72:

And Virgin's investment has only just been announced, is over the next 5 years and there was no belief or expectation that was going to happen years ago when BDUK tender was put out to EU. Question is, would Virgin have done that if not for the injection to the market that BDUK provided which has undoubtedly raised the profile of high speed broadband? And how many not-spots do you think Virgin's money will cover? Bet it is a very low percentage of their rollout that don't already get other high speed broadband.

Don't forget that Fujitsu's tender within the BDUK framework was partnered by Virgin. You have to assume that, at the time the partnership was put together, Virgin had some intention of offering services to the BDUK NGA intervention areas over Fujitsu's infrastructure.

Yes i agree if there is only a single provider then there is no choice. but the point is the industry like all others should have multiple providers competing with each other.

The problem is it does not as most are parasites to a single infrastructure.

And here lies the issue. there IS a single infrastructure provider for most solutions, you either get something or nothing from all of them.

I live in a county where OR refused point blank to even fit ADSL into three exchanges on the basis of viability. This meant nobody in the area had the "choice" of all the operators you refer.

This was a blatant stranglehold had it not been for a competitor who made a business model that worked in these areas and continues to do so 10 years later. All without state or other external funding.

Now BDUK has afforded the ability for OR to not only provide FTTC to these areas but in the majority of cases FTTP/FTTH as there is either 1 or no cabinets (EO lines).

The pre-existing commercial system has been deemed non existent by the process and overbuild concerns are therefore not an issue.

This is clearly state funded competition in areas that the incumbent operator refused point blank to provide to.

What we usually hear when we state this is "ah yes but blah blah provider will be cheaper". By all means provide me a list of ISP's that provide phone and Broadband from £13.99 a month inclusive .

Do not forget to include line rental and other tie in "bundles" in any comparisons of course.

This of course leads onto value for money and take up. Once people go VoIP (Over fixed wireless) and ditch the ever increasing line rental, min call charges, muffly crackly lines, charges for every little extra, their number being sold to telemarketers etc.. They are very unlikely to want to go back.

None have so far..

Where is the value to say running FTTP to a hamlet of 4 properties that have a super fast service and use VoIP already for example? It is still happening though as the money is there to spend regardless.

Other places are told the money is already spent, namely business parks where leased line revenues need protection.


State aid is not intended to fund choice.

Keyword in the last question was 'ALL'

Evidence for the cost of a FTTH roll-out is the Lightning project itself, and 5 years to roll-out to 4 million, versus the 19 million in 5 years that FTTC managed and at a lot lower cost.

The question on what is best is whether you view the current build as all that will happen for the next fifty years, or will incremental upgrades happen. For B4RN and others with no legacy footprint going FTTH from the start makes a lot more sense, particularly as most of the commercial FTTH from altnets is demand led so they can bank on good take-up.

At the end of the day even if BT went for FTTH there would be many objections and complaints about the roll-out timeframe, and the complications of dealing with new builds after the initial roll-out is complete etc etc

The moaning that the project lighning is not happening in rural areas actually worries me, as it suggests many have no concept of the economics behind both the technology and the commercial realities, but moaning does get you a few column inches in the press.

Don't forget that Fujitsu's tender within the BDUK framework was partnered by Virgin

Hmm, I didn't forget that as I never knew it Thanks, gives a little more info to the old brain structure...