What a joke!

BT is an absolute joke and should be ashamed of their [censored] poor broadband services. Why anyone who lives in a Virgin Media area has xDSL is beyond me!! I have just had to move back to BT from Virgin because my new property does not support Virgin. Its like going back in time 10 years. I live 400m from my exchange and still only get 19mbps on ADSL2+.

FTTC is another dead dog... <b>up to</b>40mbps wow! I had 50mbps nearly 3 years ago on Virgin and 100mbps is being rolled out already.

Get your act together BT and stop releasing huge profits and holding this country back in the dark ages!

lol you should think yourself lucky... 19Mb is actually quite good ......could be a lot worse like many on bt will tell you ... though i do understand your point,the hair i have left would fall out if i had to go back to bt ....
;
;
;
;
;

Don't move if its that important then.
VM are as much at fault for not expanding coverage too.

Where you live should not have anything to do with service!! Broadband postcode lottery!

VM is the result of many mergers and aquisitions but has been a private company from day 1. So why is it just as much at fault for failing to expand its network?

BT was handed the network from the GPO for relatively buttons and therefore in my opinion has an obligation to provide the people of this country with a level of service. Instead we are provided with a complete substandard service. Just look how far behind USA we are and look at the size of the country!!

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

I live 400m from my exchange and still only get 19mbps on ADSL2+.

...so what's the problem?

What do you mean? 19mbps is pants when you have been using 50mbps for a few years.

Where you live affects many things in life, at least BT are providing you infinitly more than BT are at this new address.

Given no legal obligation to provider broadband exists what is the complaint?

The GPO network if you had not noticed has had considerable investment made in it. As for being behind the US - I presume you've not noticed the zipcode lottery that exists there either? Or most other countries.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

Where you live should not have anything to do with service!! Broadband postcode lottery!

VM is the result of many mergers and aquisitions but has been a private company from day 1. So why is it just as much at fault for failing to expand its network?

BT was handed the network from the GPO for relatively buttons and therefore in my opinion has an obligation to provide the people of this country with a level of service. Instead we are provided with a complete substandard service. Just look how far behind USA we are and look at the size of the country!!

At the time BT was created from the GPO there was only the telephone network. No such thing as broadband.

I think the improvements BT have made to the telephone network are outstanding.

With regard to broadband, I think with a little deeper research you will find that the population of huge swathes of the USA would kill for what we get through BT. Or the competition between many different retailers here - it's take it or leave it in the bulk USA as I understand it.

I will grant you that BT could do far better than it does wrt broadband. I just take issue with the comparisons you make.

Prams and toys because it is not what someone wants springs to mind

Didn't you bother to check before you moved, or was it your plan to move then moan?

You've gone from a sports car to a limo and still complain, while most have to cycle or walk. Stump up the cash for the FTTC for your exchange if it's that important.

Horses and courses, I was once a proud customers of VM 20MB, when they first rolled it out, for the first 3 wks. Out of my whole year with VM. It once hit 14MB at 3am, averaged in-between 6MB & 8MB whenever testing was done and down to embarrising crawl at peak times, they cut me off every month for 5 days due to them not being able set up DD. Been with BT ever since with two problems. Also now out of the suburbs and in Mid Rural Wales at a distance of 41db from ( Mrkt 1 or 2 depending what site you use), exchange with a profile of 6500 and through put of 6.3 and at peak times down to 6. Very happy with my BT.

No ive gone from sports car to larda...

My complaint is the way they are holding this country back...

Yes but have you seen the size of the country... most major urban cities in the USA have better broaband speeds available! FTTP has been getting installed in many locations for many years in the states. So why are BT so behind???

I have a friend in the US and the most he can get is 7Mbit and it costs more than BT charge. He had a faster cheaper connection when he lived in the UK.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

My complaint is the way they are holding this country back...

i don't think they are holding the country back.they are restricted to what they can provide over the final copper length..yea FTTP would be great if we could all get it,but in reality that is not going to happen for a good few years yet....

as another poster said,you have a good connection where you are and diff locations provide diff services.you are still one of the lucky ones getting 19Mb.that is still well above the uk average
.
.
.

This link has a great excerpt from a program made in the US.

It compares US broadband to:
a) Dutch fibre, based on speed and the dutch rollout plans/investment
b) UK broadband, based on the price & competition, with a mere nod to starting fibre rollout.

And they very much think the UK is good from those perspectives.

Personally, I think VM have no real drive. They don't want to build their network out to cover the less dense areas (all cost-related), don't want to infill missing spots in places they *do* cover (I know from experience of our 16-year old estate, less than 100 yards from VM's network), and don't want to service some houses that they already go past.

VM had the chance to offer these speeds a decade ago, but didn't bother - they were too busy chasing "just" the TV market. They don't innovate, and don't drive the broadband market - they react, and go for the "cheap" broadband markets alongside TV (pretty much like Sky). And above all, they don't care about giving a quality operation that lives up to the headline speeds they have now banged out.

Frankly, we in the UK need to be paying more for broadband, and investing that in better technology that reaches out to (and beyond) the masses. Sweden has access to decent fibre... but standard broadband costs £30pm, and fast fibre costs £50pm. What does your standard Sky/VM consumer think about those prices when he just adds on top of his TV package, and pays trivial amounts, and puts up with poor speeds & services?

I'm no defender of BT (they're screwing up my fibre order as we speak), but I'm aware of what it takes to do a *proper* *quality* *national* rollout, of both the access network and the core network behind it. VM ain't it.

3 times the national average is not a bad deal.

The past has shown that you are a 'the world is woe of me' type person, so you aren't going to get much sympathy

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

This link has a great excerpt from a program made in the US.

Good vid!

It takes a long time, it is a lot of hassle, but once you have it you can rely on it for a very long time.

This touches the heart of many infrastructure woes that the UK has. On a local and national level, certain roads or rail systems are lacking in 21st century planning and capacity. This is very obvious up here. See this road from Perth to Inverness (A9). Now imagine if the road builders had the imagination to build a more direct route through the mountains, as the Americans did. Instead of a 133 mile, 2.5hr journey, it could be an 80 mile, 90 minute journey. This would mean that Inverness and the highlands would be less out of reach for the rest of the UK in a commercial sense, especially for couriers and hauliers. At present, deliveries to the highlands have their own rates.

Applying this sort of thinking to broadband to places where there are large rural or spread-out populations not only gives the people access to the same things as the city dwellers, but means that commerce can access a new market of previously untapped revenue and perhaps also skills and learning (not all the best minds migrate to the cities).

IMO the biggest problem with the UK infrastructure is not the cost or the work ethic or the difficulties. It's the way that those who make the decisions see only the cost and never the value. Only the difficulties and never the benefits. They think in the short-term gains financially or politically and avoid the long-term value as it is of no personal benefit.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A6rdal_Tunnel

L�rdal Tunnel

Work begun: 1995
Opened: 2000
Vehicles per day: 1,000
Length 24.51 km (15.23 mi)
Highest elevation 265 m (869 ft)
Lowest elevation 5 m (16 ft)
Width 9 m (30 ft)
Grade 2.5%


Now consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Construc...

Double the length, forty five times the cost, and arguably of no value to the economy. British planning versus Norwegian...UK Broadband versus Dutch.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

BT was handed the network from the GPO for relatively buttons

The BT shareholders purchased the network - the total cost of BT shares was well over £5billion - that is not buttons.

BT makes a profit and reinvests - the amount invested in the broadband network is a lot greater than the profits realised so far and will probably take another 10 years before any return is seen and in that time further investment will be made which will take another 15 year to recoup.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

Just look how far behind USA we are and look at the size of the country!!

Everyone in the UK can get a 'phone line and dial up - not so in the USA. I have contacts out there who have to drive 10 or 20 miles to get access to a landline for telephony. There are plenty of small towns in the USA that do not have broadband - ADSL or cable and rely on dial up.

I 'm of the understanding that any land owned by private indivduals is a major course of slowing roll outs and increasing cost.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Where you live affects many things in life, at least BT are providing you infinitly more than BT VM are at this new address.

????

Is my correction what you meant to say?

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

My complaint is the way they are holding this country back...

They are doing far more than any other telco. All VM is doing is a small (very small) amount of infill and introducing services that not many people really want.

I'm not looking for sympathy I'm point out that BT are failing to provide what could be offered. Sympathy over broadband speed?! What it is, is what it is!

My point is that considering the size of the country BT have been holding back for years. It is all well and good government saying X, Y and Z should be done but if BT don't pull their fingers out it will never happen.

What an absolute load of rubbish... id like to see some evidence about your 2nd statement!

i have been with virgin media and there service is [censored].

i think bt is much better then virgin media!!!


VIRGIN MEDIA ARE A RIP OFF

BT only agreed to cover the cost of installing lines to our building if they had exclusivity on providing services. VM or Telewest was not allowed to install ducting after the developer signed the deal with BT.

In my experience I have never had a problem with them and still use them in my other property.

If you were not happy with that arrangement why move into the building?

Nothing wrong with that agreement - VM could have come to a similar arrangement.

Blame the developer - he was being too stingy to pay the cost of installing the ducting and cabling - as he would have done with gas, electricity, water, drains, sewers &c.

Sigh... yet another BT vs Virgin thread, they are both as bad as each other lets just agree they both suck and that the government need to do more if they really do see broadband as an important part of the future of Britain and don't want a huge 'digital divide' between some urban areas that will have FTTP/C, cable and LLU services and most rural areas that will get BT wholesale ADSL and nothing else.

As for whinging about 19mbit.. no comment is needed as like has been said you have way above the average so not sure what your point is..

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

In my experience I have never had a problem with them and still use them in my other property.

A pity they are letting you down at this property then. Why aren't you whining about that?

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

What an absolute load of rubbish... id like to see some evidence about your 2nd statement!

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4650-virgin-media...

According to that only 3.7% of VM's customers have opted for the 50Mb/s service. Does that sound like a popular 'must have' service to you?

My point is that considering the size of the country BT have been holding back for years. It is all well and good government saying X, Y and Z should be done but if BT don't pull their fingers out it will never happen.

... and where is your thread complaining about Virgin' inadequate roll out of services to where you have moved to. Virgin have been around long enough to take their fair share of your blame.

isn't that what businesses are all about,

guaranteeing a return in their investment?

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

Where you live should not have anything to do with service!!

I'm not even going to explain to you why that has to be one of the most absurd comments I have ever read on these forums. If you don't know why I think this, then you definitely can't see past the end of your nose, to the big picture that lies right in front of you.

I will however point you to this lovely story for further reading, and then you might at least be grateful for how lucky you are to actually have a 19mbit broadband connection, rather than none at all:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011...

And if you still don't 'get it' after reading that, someone needs to invent one of these to help you out.

I am waiting for the whining to really start when the OP finds out that his line is connected to the exchange and so won't have FTTC.

In reply to a post by mixt:

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

Where you live should not have anything to do with service!!

I'm not even going to explain to you why that has to be one of the most absurd comments I have ever read on these forums.

Well said, mixt!

I wouldn't normally post this, because I will be stating the bleeding obvious for most posters to this site, but at the moment I'm trying to put together a 5Gbps radio link scheme to carry broadband at 6Mpbs to some friends of mine in a Scottish community that's currently getting ADSLmax at 256kbps and paying the same as everyone else with 8Mbps ADSLmax.

And that's before I start quoting for more expensive (but at least it's cheaper than it used to be!) satellite access broadband from HYLAS-1, for others who can't get ADSL broadband at all.

I picked up on exaclty the same quote, but i think your summary is a little harsh. You're right about how some decision-makers view short term though.

However, the UK has a lot of infrastructure that was innovative and made commercial sense at the time, but is rather dated now - 7' wide canals, for instance. So we get infrastructure relatively early in the lifecycle (in global terms), and suffer as others only install something a little newer, but later. We get a first-mover advantage, but not necessarily a long-term advantage.

To the companies that made the initial gamble/investment, there is of course a lot to be said for making the most of the existing investment. Quite naturally.

The problem is that we have a combination -
a) a national, widespread, fairly reasonable but old-ish, copper network that can be enticed to give reasonable-ish bandwidth at relatively cheap prices.
b) very cheap broadband packages, where charge isn't related to speed
c) a subscriber base that isn't willing to pay higher prices for faster speeds
d) Investors that won't take a long enough view

In that environment, there isn't a ready mass-market for a whole new access network that will be expensive to install. Insufficient people will pay the monthly charges required to recoup this investment - because copper will be massively cheaper, and "just" good enough. People will eventually want this stuff, but the investors aren't prepared to wait long enough.

It is frustrating when you want this stuff, and you're willing to pay the premium for it. You just need another 10 million to be willing too.

The thing is... to make the government's target come true (both "the best" high speed broadband in Europe *and* universal obligation of 2Mbps) by 2015 means we have to overtake both Sweden & Holland, who aren't standing still.

Someone is going to be doing a lot of rollout to make that happen over 4 years. BT are getting themselves into a position where they have the core network; they have the technology for the rollout, and have the trained staff to effect a rollout. Fujitsu is still a dream, but perhaps with potential. Sky will attempt to cream the masses off onto a sub-standard core/service package. And then there's VM, who i (obviously) just don't rate.

And someone has to pay for it all too...

The mobile networks have some potential to play a part in this, but the government needs to have a different view of handing spectrum over this time (instead of it being effectively a humungous telecom tax, like the 3G auction a decade ago). Every £ paid for spectrum reduces the likelihood of it becoming useful broadband coverage to rural areas.

Satellite too. But I wonder how many people will think of this as a viable option? I suspect it will only happen when villages get organised en-masse.

PS - A better current example from the UK is perhaps the Hindhead Tunnel. 4x the cost, but expecting 35,000 vehicles per day. It is a badly needed upgrade to the road - but it became a tunnel as a solution to avoid a beauty spot! Huge costs, but distinctly long-term value.

The tunnel has 104 CCTV cameras

For 1.14 miles of tunnel?

That's one camera for every 58 feet, or 2 for every 116 feet if they are on both tunnels. Wouldn't a traffic camera at either end, counting them in and out be better?

Good though. I like the idea of digging down the way to hide the traffic, park the cars and avoid the hills. We could learn a lot from many similar models.


Coming back to broadband,

The problem is that we have a combination -
a) a national, widespread, fairly reasonable but old-ish, copper network that can be enticed to give reasonable-ish bandwidth at relatively cheap prices.
b) very cheap broadband packages, where charge isn't related to speed
c) a subscriber base that isn't willing to pay higher prices for faster speeds
d) Investors that won't take a long enough view

a) I agree with that in as much that it has to be cheaper to get existing infrastrucuture up to the highest speeds it can handle, rather than upgrade to new stuff (talking purely about copper over fibre btw). While much of the country can use fibre due to copper's limitations, 90 odd percent of residential and a decent percentage of commercial businesses do not need it to operate. They perhaps need web access, a website and e-mail. That does not need fibre speeds for the most part. Large companies with masses of employees or data networking, yes, but your average small to medium, non-IT related company just wants necessity services (as above).

In that sense, both the residential and commercial customers should be pushing for ADSL2+, rather than fibre. Get the country up to a reasonable speed, and see if the infrastructure can handle it. While that's all happening, the networks are being upgraded with a view towards fibre.


b) That's the biggest problem imo. One person paying less for 50 Meg than someone on 256k is criminal. If ADSL2+ was £5 more expensive, some would not take it. Many would, but at least those who could not reach said speeds would not have to pay more. Same goes for fibre.

I remember this article:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/07/08/is-fibre-bro...


c) I don't agree completely. I'll go more with "isn't willing to pay substantially higher prices". There are so many savings to be made by online shopping, information gathering and so on, that a fiver is nothing.

d) Yup!

Surely, if you really want 50Mbps then you can get it by Leased Line / EFM / Bonded DSL?

And what do BT have to provide, a voice capable phone line last time I looked

Why don't you ring up Virgin and rant at them for not being in you new location?

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

I wouldn't normally post this, because I will be stating the bleeding obvious for most posters to this site, but at the moment I'm trying to put together a 5Gbps radio link scheme to carry broadband at 6Mpbs to some friends of mine in a Scottish community that's currently getting ADSLmax at 256kbps and paying the same as everyone else with 8Mbps ADSLmax.

That's outrageous. They must have a far longer cable than most people and are probably forcing the DSLAM to operate at peak power. They should be charged extra.

Okay so I'm not really being serious but it's a serious point. Nothing about their circumstances is making it significantly cheaper to provide them with a service and it's quite likely that the extra long line is making it more expensive to provide the service. I'm glad to hear that something is being done to improve their service but let's kill this idea of linking ADSL connection speed to price, please. It's a none starter. The costs of ADSL are pretty much fixed regardless of line length and end-user speed. Any slight increase in cost resulting from high usage by faster connections is most likely offset by the increase in power consumed by longer lines.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

b) That's the biggest problem imo. One person paying less for 50 Meg than someone on 256k is criminal. If ADSL2+ was £5 more expensive, some would not take it. Many would, but at least those who could not reach said speeds would not have to pay more. Same goes for fibre.

But that doesn't always make sense. Look at the poster in this thread talking about people only getting 256k on ADSL Max. There's no good reason for giving them a discount - should prolly be a surcharge if anything. If you forced a price drop on their provider they'd likely just treat the connection as not viable and terminate the contract.

I do agree that pricing in the UK is out of whack (too low) but simply pegging it to speed is asking for trouble.

Edited by Andrue (Fri 27-May-11 07:54:30)

If the country is willing to pay the true costs for installing and running faster speeds I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.

As most of the country only want to pay buttons (your words) they won't. I find you comments astounding. Yet another poster who hasn't got a clue how things work.

If those speeds are so important to you you shouldn't have bought the property or maybe negioted the selling price because of lack of VM access so you could have used the savings to buy yourself a leased line.

Choice is everything, you had a choice where you wanted to move and you made it. If it wasn't hooked up to a gas main and you had to use oil heating would you also be ranting at the national grid gas pipeline service?

Whiners like you are holding this country back... most would rip your arms off for 19Mbps

I agree with the sentiments but people don't always have a choice as to where they move to. Economic and social drivers could pretty much force a move on you that you otherwise would not consider.

But, the OP is indeed highly misguided. I've always felt a little fortunate that I can get broadband at 10Mbps where I am as I know much of the country are nowhere nearthese speeds (including most of my family).

And BT were looking to be ahead of the game with fibre in the 80's. It was even on tomorrows world. But, the government wouldn't allow BT to offer broadcast TV over it so it was not economically viable. The areas that did get it then ended up having to have copper overlay in order to get broadband! Plus the fibre then was probably nowhere near as good as modern fibre.

And as far as Virgin goes. They didn't come to my area because my local council wouldn't give them permission to dig up the roads to lay the cable! So, not even Virgin's fault where I am. Seems to have been central and local government slowing us down here rather than the fault of the providers. Now gov wants to force them to spend money to do what they were going to do but now possibly can't finance due to the current climate.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

a) I agree with that in as much that it has to be cheaper to get existing infrastrucuture up to the highest speeds it can handle, rather than upgrade to new stuff (talking purely about copper over fibre btw). While much of the country can use fibre due to copper's limitations, 90 odd percent of residential and a decent percentage of commercial businesses do not need it to operate. They perhaps need web access, a website and e-mail. That does not need fibre speeds for the most part. Large companies with masses of employees or data networking, yes, but your average small to medium, non-IT related company just wants necessity services (as above).

OK, but... some of the arument comes down to the services offered over the line too - especially video-based - and those are expanding as fast as we can get the line to carry more. So ...

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In that sense, both the residential and commercial customers should be pushing for ADSL2+, rather than fibre. Get the country up to a reasonable speed, and see if the infrastructure can handle it. While that's all happening, the networks are being upgraded with a view towards fibre.

... it might turn out that ADSL2+ isn't really fast enough - at least not for those further from the exchanges.

The solution to *that* can be just to put ADSL2+ out in the cabinets, rather than VDSL. Kcom seem to be doing exactly this in Hull - or rather, in the villages of East Yorkshire outside Hull.

I'm not sure if the equipment would then be in a good shape to switch over to VDSL2 at some point - that would depend on whether there would be much interference between cabinet-based VDSL2 and the cabinet-based ADSL2+.

But putting ADSL2+ in cabinets wouldn't necessarily be much cheaper than the current FTTC rollout, except to end-users who keep the same wiring and router/modem setup.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

b) That's the biggest problem imo. One person paying less for 50 Meg than someone on 256k is criminal. If ADSL2+ was £5 more expensive, some would not take it. Many would, but at least those who could not reach said speeds would not have to pay more. Same goes for fibre.

I agree. Someone later points out that it costs the same to provide ADSL2+, whether it carries 24Mbps or 256Kbps. But actually it doesn't...

With the copper in place, it is the capital expenditure that stays the same. However, when you actually use the connection on a day-by-day basis, the 24Mbps one is using a far bigger proportion of the core network, instantaneously; more people at 24Mbps then requires a broader core network to avoid congestion.

Finally, someone on a 24Mbps line is more likely to download a larger volume in the course of a month.This too requires a broader core network.

The cost of broadband isn't *just* in the access network; the core network, peering connections, and ISP network all come into play too.

I remember this article:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/07/08/is-fibre-bro...

Nice article, but it points out the real problems of estimating how much this will actually cost (and it wasn't obvious that it meant FTTC at first, rather than FTTP). And one commenter pointed out that that the £75k could well have only funded 1/4 of the village.

The hassles that BT are having in their pilot for FTTP have already caused delays to further pilots. I guess they really need to work out how to re-arrange the install work so as to minimise the expenditure.

c) I don't agree completely. I'll go more with "isn't willing to pay substantially higher prices". There are so many savings to be made by online shopping, information gathering and so on, that a fiver is nothing.

I can go with that. But not everyone can see the savings so easily. It took a long time to persuade my parents to jump from dial-up to DSL, where the nature of an always-on connection that doesn't tie up the phone ought to make it a no-brainer, never mind the speed advantage.

The cost of putting ADSL2+ into street cabinets is not dissimlar to putting VDSL2 into cabinets, i.e. power for DSLAM and backhaul (i.e. fibre)

ADSL2+ might manage with smaller kit, and some small ten line bricks can cope with power from existing phone lines.

What is not always clear is how many FTTP overseas deployments are really FTT to a box in the basement, and then CAT5/6 to flats in the property.

You are right as far as the cost of the access network (assuming that it is already there, and has repaid itself), but not if you consider the cost of the core network.

The core network needs to be dimensioned so it doesn't cause congestion in one (or both) of two ways:
- It needs to handle the instantaneous demand for the volume of data, needed quickly
- It needs to handle the average demand for the volume of data

The first requirement places the larger demand, and is tied to what people want to do *now*. We might want fast page-loads on the browser. Or stream video without buffering-pauses. Or get command-line/GUI access over SSH or a VPN without lag. Or gaming with low latency.

These kind of demands are very much tied to the speed of the line, while some are additionally linked to the volume of data (especially video)

The second requirement is smaller, as it allows the data to be slowed down when outright speed isn't the foremost requirement. Things like P2P, Usenet and FTP. The volume can be huge, but the timing is much less critical.

These kind of demands are tied more to the overall volume of data transferred.

The total cost of broadband really includes all 3 elements - so ISPs pay out for all 3 elements, even if the ISP isn't charging the end-user that way.

Someone on a 256K link isn't getting as good a service on the second part - the instantaneous demand for data - but isn't placing as large a demand on the core network either. They can certainly get a discount for *that* aspect.

They are less likely to be running huge data volumes either. Where the ISP offers "unlimited" packages, then someone else is almost certainly using "their share" of the total bandwidth available to the ISP. They can get a discount for this aspect too, but only if the ISP stops offering "unlimited" packages, and starts charging based on volume usage.

So... some amount based on basic provision; some amount based on speed above the basic, and some amount based on the volume of data. That would be the fairest way.

Unfortunately, there are two hurdles to this:
a) Ofcom doesn't seem to allow it. Speed doesn't seem to factor in to their price controls
b) It is confusing, and hard to predict on a month-by-month basis. The marketers will tell you that a confused buyer doesn't buy - so they want a "simple" offering - that, of course, has to compete with others.

If everyone were to pay their fair share for what they are using (including something to repay the cost of deployment in the first place), there would be no problem. But not everyone thinks of that as fair!

Yep, its a bit of everything really. its not as simple as the OP basher makes out.

Maggies fault for stopping BT when they were going to do it off their own back - Would they have done it? Who knows if they had the broadband landscape might have looked very different in the UK, not sure if it would be better or worse in terms of competition really.

The customer/markets fault for ridiculously low broadband prices, less profit less to invest

Virgin's fault for not covering the whole of the UK so that a real broadband competition can take place, BT vs Virgin everywhere means proper competition

Governments fault for not leaving BT alone to do their thing, everything was sold to BT 20+ yrs ago yet the Government continues to meddle via Ofcom, they are a private business with a remit to provide voice via the USO. Ditch the USO and let them provide what they want to provide where their is demand and profit, just like everyone else gets to do. Forget SMP its a stupid phrase and doesn't even work. BT are required to open up ducts (PIA) because they have SMP, what.. everywhere? Surely they only have it some areas and not others, Sky/Talk Talk/Virgin must totally dominate some areas yet PIA is required in that area also?

Ditch SMP in terms of duct access and use SIP (made up name) significant infrastructure power/presence.

Make BT and Virgin open up their ducts/poles together at a fair price, not just one of them.

ISP's do us tiered pay for what you use, hence the various precious metal tiers, where one is 2GB a month, another 10GB and another unlimited.

The question is this, is a 0.25Meg line using 2GB a month, cheaper to provision than a 15Meg line still using 2GB a month. Flat out a .25Meg can consume 75GB in a month.

On the Ofcom doesn't allow this, nothing stopping a provider charging less for speed, but most have chosen to do it on volume of data. Particularly as speed is not fixed, and even if you set up bands, e.g. 0 to 2Meg price A, 2 to 6 price B, what about those users who flip between A and B on various days.

The costs of handling the tiered pricing might result in no actual savings for some people, other than a perceived they pay less.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The cost of putting ADSL2+ into street cabinets is not dissimlar to putting VDSL2 into cabinets, i.e. power for DSLAM and backhaul (i.e. fibre)

ADSL2+ might manage with smaller kit, and some small ten line bricks can cope with power from existing phone lines.

I agree with that. To Kcom in Hull, there is an obvious marketing benefit: that they can do this seamlessly, without requiring upgrades on the part of the end user. It can help them steal BT's customers because there is no apparent cost to change.

But for BT, there is a *huge* advantage in making FTTC look as technologically-different as possible. Doing this gives them free reign, approved by Ofcom, to charge an uncontrolled amount; keeping the technology different helps to justify the avoidance of price controls for longer. The Infinity branding, separate modem, and the 15Mbps minimum, all helps keep this air of mystique over the whole product offering.

What is not always clear is how many FTTP overseas deployments are really FTT to a box in the basement, and then CAT5/6 to flats in the property.

Certainly many places abroad are better suited to this kind of deployment. They start by having many more multi-tenant buildings, and so are more densely populated than our single-family homes spread out in suburbia.

But more than that - the flats are also designed to be more communal, with shared facilities. When I've lived in flats in Sweden, they are *much* better organised for sharing TV, heating and washing/drying facilities.

I found an interesting article comparing Stockholm with the US - and it is as interesting for the comments made, as the article itself.

Following the link from there to Stokab, and reading their aims for having the best network in the world... If the UK has the aim of bettering this by 2015, then great. But I don't seen us getting close in the next 5 years, even for just London!

Before responding to the details, your post as a whole reflects exactly the issue of complexity, and why the marketing side hate it. It is impossible to understand the answers to any of that lot!

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

ISP's do us tiered pay for what you use, hence the various precious metal tiers, where one is 2GB a month, another 10GB and another unlimited.

I agree - but it doesn't stop people demanding an unlimited pipe for their P2P for no extra money. It all costs, and people need to understand that too.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The question is this, is a 0.25Meg line using 2GB a month, cheaper to provision than a 15Meg line still using 2GB a month. Flat out a .25Meg can consume 75GB in a month.

Spot on - it can consume large volumes, provided you are willing to wait for it. You are also making the ISP's life easier, because it can spread the load (through the core, or into it's pipes/centrals) over time.

But it will never be able to stream HD (or possibly even SD), and will never manage to load a web-page quite as fluidly. It will never feel as good, to an online user wanting things "now". And that aspect has to be worth something too - but it is harder to value.

I guess ISP's try to distinguish it by having separate peak & off-peak volume levels.

On the Ofcom doesn't allow this, nothing stopping a provider charging less for speed, but most have chosen to do it on volume of data. Particularly as speed is not fixed, and even if you set up bands, e.g. 0 to 2Meg price A, 2 to 6 price B, what about those users who flip between A and B on various days.

Well, Ofcom sets the pricing controls at the BT Wholesale level, making Access into a fixed-price entity. But yes, the ISP could choose to price based on speed. But - as you show, another source of complexity - one the consumer *definitely* will argue about.

The costs of handling the tiered pricing might result in no actual savings for some people, other than a perceived they pay less.

I think that the ISP's choose tiered pricing based on volume because it is more objectively measureable. I reckon it (peak-hour volumes) probably happens to also approximate to speed... for the majority.

But when someone complains "why am I paying the same, but I'm only getting 256Kbps?" you can't really answer that those people on 24Mbps *are* paying more, because they've ended up on a higher tier too. It is probably close to reality though...

It is interesting, now, that ISPs coming up with FTTC packages are also coming up with higher usage allowances alongside the higher speeds (and higher prices). But it is really a technology label, rather than a speed boundary: Some people will be paying more to get FTTC, will get a handsome speed improvement over their old line, but still be going slower than some who remain on ADSL2+, paying less.

I don't know the answer. Maybe there isn't one, and we're just repeating the circular arguments that go on in ISP marketing rooms everywhere...

BT Wholesale used to charge a

High Port fee based on speed (2Meg around £38)
plus lot lower pricing for the BT Central element

In 2004 this changed when CBC and UBC pricing systems were introduced by BT Wholesale not at the behest of Ofcom.
The old pricing scheme set by Ofcom meant 8Meg was going to cost £70+ a month.

This moved a fixed price port fee
Higher BT Central pricing.

Ofcom did not force this change, but it could be argued if Max was to work, BT Wholesale had little other option based on the pricing methodologies.

The Ofcom pricing exists to ensure that LLU operators can under cut BT Wholesale.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I guess ISP's try to distinguish it by having separate peak & off-peak volume levels.

It would be far better for those on slower lines to not have their lines managed at peak times. A 20 Meg line being throttled to 5 Meg is workable, but a 256k line being throttled would be a waste of time.

Not sure if such lines are throttled, but it would be interesting to see slow these line get in peak times.

Most throttles are down to a certain speed, rather than a percentage of what the line achieve, so slower lines will see less apparent throttling

Ah yes - I remember paying humungous prices for 2Mb service.

I guess what your reminder shows us is that paying by speed alone will always fall over when the next technology boost comes along.

Maybe the way forward *is* through having tiered services that both change the total volume in the package *and* alter the speeds through a traffic management system.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

BT is an absolute joke and should be ashamed of their [censored] poor broadband services. Why anyone who lives in a Virgin Media area has xDSL is beyond me!! I have just had to move back to BT from Virgin because my new property does not support Virgin. Its like going back in time 10 years. I live 400m from my exchange and still only get 19mbps on ADSL2+.

FTTC is another dead dog... <b>up to</b>40mbps wow! I had 50mbps nearly 3 years ago on Virgin and 100mbps is being rolled out already.

Get your act together BT and stop releasing huge profits and holding this country back in the dark ages!

My emphasis.

BT's fault that Virgin didn't bother to roll out to most of the country?

You seem to miss understand BT would not cover the cost of providing the service to the apartment block unless Virgin where not allowed to installed at my property. My postcode is virgin enabled... my postcode... L19 9AD but they are not allowed to install there.

If BT was able to offer me 50mbps then fine but they can't so I should be allowed to get service from Virgin or whoever I want!

Sounds similar to whats happened in the new build I've just moved into. I'm in a Virgin area, but they only wired up the place with BT. So I'm stuck with BT.

Well, correction. I'm stuck with BT OpenReach technology who supply the physical line and DSLAM and back-haul network. I have no involvement with BT as a customer though, since I rent the entire package (line rental+broadband) through AA. I like this setup, as I have absolutely no involvement with BT customer service when things go wrong, as AA take care of everything. Many years ago, this wasn't possible, and I see this as a positive development of how far we have come in a decade of broadband evolution here in the UK.

I do, however, fail to see your point of view. I mean, if I wanted a property with sun, a golden beach, and blue sea view, why would I purchase a property right on the north coast of Scotland? (purely as an example). No, I would more consider a property on the east or west coast of a continent near the equator. Common sense, right?

You should have checked out all your requirements and made sure the property matched them. The only person at fault here is yourself, because you seem to be deluded that you have the right to demand a service from any provider, regardless of your physical location, which you chose. The world doesn't work in such a fairy tale way, I'm afraid.

In my case, I had to move out from where I was into a new place fairly sharpish, so I went with what ever I could get at the time. I much value a roof over my head anytime as that is more important to me than whether I get 50Mbs broadband rather than 10.

Peace.

Then you need to take it up with the developer who made the agreement.

Arrangements like this are not uncommon and I think T5 at Heathrow has something similar, but with BT locked out.

The reasoning is that the developer has the responsibility to bear the cost of services/infrastucture to be installed, but in an effort to reduce these costs, they offer exclusivity deals (usually for a fixed period) to providers in return for them paying for the cost of installation instead.

At least with BT providing the network you have a choice of ISP's and telephone providers. If/when VM do the same, people only have a single choice.

I would guess that developers don't pay to install Openreach plant and that they usually get paid to install the ducts and boxes which are supplied by Openreach 'newsites'. I doubt there is any exclusivity incentive as the rates are fixed and non-negotiable in accordance an agreement with the House Builders Federation.

Edited by deleted (Sat 28-May-11 14:09:10)

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

BT is an absolute joke and should be ashamed of their [censored] poor broadband services. Why anyone who lives in a Virgin Media area has xDSL is beyond me!! I have just had to move back to BT from Virgin because my new property does not support Virgin. Its like going back in time 10 years. I live 400m from my exchange and still only get 19mbps on ADSL2+.

FTTC is another dead dog... <b>up to</b>40mbps wow! I had 50mbps nearly 3 years ago on Virgin and 100mbps is being rolled out already.

Get your act together BT and stop releasing huge profits and holding this country back in the dark ages!

The number of people who can actually get 19Mbps via DSL is so small that you're, er, very lucky I'd hazard a guess at less than 0.5%.

The trick is: never, ever move out of a cabled area. When moving, make sure the place is already cabled, or if not, check with them by phone especially if there's anything odd about the building (private development/gated, wayleaves, high rise flats)

If you do move out of a cabled area then you're at the mercy of trying to get broadband shoved down a phone line. Move another mile out from the exchange and you might see maybe 8Mbps, one more mile and you'll be lucky to get broadband at all (maybe 2 or 3 meg). Whilst still remaining in a built up urban area, not the middle of nowhere.

It's always been like this - it's just that when you've had cable, your expectations are set higher than if you've had to put up with DSL. BT have only just woken up to broadband this year but it will be a very long time before their network will get anywhere near competing with cable's performance, because on current plans, the intention isn't even to do that as you state.

BT is a phone company that can provide internet connectivity and sometimes broadband. If you want broadband guaranteed and decent speeds, you need to live somewhere with a broadband network.