And BT have to make the business case based on those wholesale costs without being able to cross subsidise at all from the retail profits.

To be honest public does not care on delivery method so long as it works and they can stream video mainly

There is a link up with another company that gives access to other ISPs. It was mentioned in this sites news last year. Personally I would prefer to deal with them directly.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

To be honest public does not care on delivery method so long as it works and they can stream video mainly

I agree almost whole-heartedly.

However, there is a fraction of the population who don't want to see their drive or garden cut up, or walls drilled, for getting fibre all the way inside the property. I've seen figures of 20%, but I'm not sure how hyped that is.

For these people, a delivery method that stops just short of the property is actually the best compromise.

which was my point.

Alot will be down to the fact tho that noone has ever mass marketed true fibre for its strength's meaning the public dont care because they dont know.

Gigaclear dont have the financial muscle to educate people via mass marketing so BT will be fine in gigaclear areas.

Give me an app that will not work on Virgin Media 152 Mbps (which will be 200 or 300 Mbps in the next year most likely) but will work on Gigabit FTTH only then happy to start adding it to the list of why FTTH is important.

many apps wont work on VM 152mbit if in a congested area

but if assume it isnt oversubbed to the moon and back then no isnt any in terms of download.

Although in upload you can argue there is but not mainstream stuff. e.g. 4k streaming.

The seller for FTTP is stability, future proofing, proper upload speeds, and filesharing potentially becoming a lot faster. We had the killer app argument before FTTC, I maintain the view the technology has to be rolled out before a killer app is invented, the otther way is illogical. Of course accountants want it your way round as they tend to not let loose on the purse strings without some form of guaranteed takeup. A big gain of FTTP in particular is it equalises things, in theory it would end postcode lotteries, so everyone's FTTP can do the same thing, not any of this distance dependent malarky. But noone really cares all about this stuff at the moment so I am agreeing with you mass FTTP from BT is a long way off. They will only spend on that when they run out of options and their existing offerings are losing them customers.

VM I expect will increase their download speeds soon based on ignition's posts, but I dont see why they need to do it, all they doing is inviting new congestion on their network. I would rather see 100/100 then something like 300/30.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 18-Feb-15 19:10:46)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Urm BT do use sub-contractors for a fair amount of the civils work for both the C and P roll-out.

BT is also deploying some FTTP via the gap funded projects.

I think what you are actually suggesting is that BT should run a demand led scheme where people hand over cheques before construction starts?

With BT being the big slow to react/adapt firm then it does mean there is room for people like Gigaclear which is a good thing.
[/quote

As far as i know no civils are done in house .

GFast from the Cabinet is pretty much a waste of timer. The benefits from it for most users are at best marginal

No normal business would put all the work with one company. You would normally spit it between two with the cheapest getting the bulk of the work and the second cheapest about a third

The fact that no other player won a single contract has to indicate the tendering process was flawed