Rural broadband - nag your council for FTTC

After reading in the news about the government making money available for rural broadband projects, I sent a polite email to my local council, linking to the news item on the BBC web site, and asking if they planned to take advantage of it. And they are. They have a project running and I have been invited to "sign up and express an interest". So I have and I've been knocking on neighbours doors to get them to sign up too. But if I hadn't asked I would not have known about this project. So ask! If you don't ask, you don't get.

Good luck,
John

That's a good story best of luck with getting the money!

Mind you much of the urban areas of the UK have not got FTTC yet,
BT seems to keep it a closely gurded secret as to what areas they will roll out to and when.

I would have thought BT should be required to publish a full list of their Exchanges together with whether they have plans to roll out FTTC or FTTH with the year and in some cases an approcximate date such as Q1 2012. THose more thaan say 18 months out could just quote the year as any dates that far out are likely to change.

At least this way people would know if there were plans to roll out FTTC or FTTH to their exchange & would have some indication of the timescales

I suspect BT don't want to do this as they tend to change their schedule when competion moves into an area they dont intend to roll out to for a long time. If they publish full roll out dates it becomes obvious to the regulator that BT are acting in an anti competative mannor

FTTx Where and When

I would take ANYTHING that BT says with an extremely large pinch of salt. Samknows showed my local exchange as being upgraded to 21CN in Q4 2009. I even received an email from my ISP asking if I was interested in upgrading, when the time came. Q4 came and went and the only thing that happened was that Samknows reported "n/a" for the 21CN date.

From what I can make out on this forum 21CN is dead (?).

I'm afraid that BT is simply one of those companies that everyone loves to hate. Unfortunately they manage to pull the wool over most people's eyes. Most of my neighbours use them as their ISP and they all report poor broadband whereas mine is rock solid.

Maybe now that their consultancy arm isn't losing a billion each year they will have more money to invest.

Thank R, very useful. I can tell my brother in he's getting FTTC in September. My exchange is on the one day / some day / some-time never list, i.e. none of these

Thanks,
John

You should be so lucky. About 3 miles from a city centre and our exchange not on any list.

It's not unusual (sorry, that's my Tom Jones syndrome flaring up again). BT is a private company so its difficult to lean on them. They'd make money (surely) from investing in such a location, that and many others like it. There has been years of under-investment. It's almost like they still have the 1950s Post Office attitude of "you'll get what you're given and count yourself lucky".

I'd really like to see someone come up with a competitive product and just blow them away, but where is the money going to come from these days?

John

I am aware of that list but it is not a complete list and only shows exchanges being upgraded in the next 18 months odd,

I have not seen a definitive list of ALL the BT exchanges with BT indicating that they are either already Upgraded or wiill be upgraded or they will not be upgraded

Two potential solutions the Fujitsu lead Open Network consortium but to get that off of the ground quickly it needs to get at least 40% of the BDUK funding but given they are handing it out to individual councils that seems unlikely to happen. It is also still dependent on getting access to BT�s ducting at a sensible price
My preferred option is for the government to require BT to spin off the local loop into a separate company. It could remain BT owned but would be a totally separate registered company it would have its own directors & P&L.
The advantage of this is it removes the conflict that exists within the BT Group. With a separate company BT would have to lease the local loop on the same basis as any other ISP or teleco
Another requirement the government should impose is that this local loop company cannot proved any end user services otherwise you are back in the conflict of interest scenario
With a separate local loop company the way they make their money is by leasing it out and the more the merrier. The current setup means BT do their best to stifle competition
With the local loop a separate company FTTH becomes far more attractive as they can get multiple companies potentially proving services to a home ie TV, Broadband, Gaming etc

Openreach is atand alone business within the BT group and provides its 490 odd Communicaiton Providers equivacally

Openreach also share NGA exchange announcement equivacally and does not provide advace ninformation -- as previously advised this NGA iinvestment is BT's own money and eqauates to £2.5bn -- Local anthoritis shoulde be conducting Open Market Review to understand Black / white / Grey areas to understand intervention areas -- -- Fundinca can only be claimed for Intervention arease

not surprices council not aware -- rea mix of very aware and very unaware councils re Bradband

21CN will show as ADSL2 oin sam knows

let me knows oyur exchange

So you've no idea about the set-up within Openreach? This conflict you talk about is prevented by Ofcom and chinese walls so that it does not and cannot happen. Openreach operate on their own

I don't see why some get on their high horse and demand a full rollout schedule with zero slippage

Its probably the single biggest change in telecomms within the UK for the last 100 years so you can expect things to change its a huge undertaking.

My exchange isn't even on the list but I'm not demanding to see when it is, its a private company rolling out a new service its nothing to do with anyone when that happens, if FTTC/P becomes available buy it, if not.. go with another provider, its not hard is it? The problem with releasing any list is that people think (as you can see) its set in stone. Only leads to disappointment for some

And what competition are you talking about moving into areas? Virgin isn't expanding and these JFDI rollouts are very small and more often than not seem to fail to get started.

BT has an effective monopoly as defined by the EU(They call it significant market power.

BT can and do take advantage of this monopoly and clearly beter regulation of BT is called for.

Assuming you are the same "Anon" as earlier comments then you put forward two suggestions about what should be done. All the previous poster is pointing out is that the second is already in place - its called Openreach.

Monlonopoly on what

no crss subsidational

all elementsa have to be stand alone and make money

no bogoff as per other telco's

A seperate company that supprts 491 communicaitonl provides equivacally in tterms of ervce and faults (in line the SLA that CP has with Openreach

no preferential treatment of rest of BT from Opernreach

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Openreach is atand alone business within the BT group and provides its 490 odd Communicaiton Providers equivacally

Openreach also share NGA exchange announcement equivacally and does not provide advace ninformation -- as previously advised this NGA iinvestment is BT's own money and eqauates to £2.5bn -- Local anthoritis shoulde be conducting Open Market Review to understand Black / white / Grey areas to understand intervention areas -- -- Fundinca can only be claimed for Intervention arease

not surprices council not aware -- rea mix of very aware and very unaware councils re Bradband

21CN will show as ADSL2 oin sam knows

let me knows oyur exchange

Now with my head auto-correcting misspelt words I read "equivocally" for each occurrence of "equivacally".

Which rather suggests what many of us believe.

"Equivalently" or "equally" I assume is what you meant, but that's boring.

what tiype of exchange is your exchange

Each exchange has a Market type show on Sam Knows) which are Market 1 - 3

The market type is determined by availability of Providers at that exchange) so a
Market 1 Exchanges are more rural, less populated, and and more likley to require intervention funding as it would unlikely for an operator willing to invest in those areas - as an aside all the BT Race to nInifinity Winners were market 1 exchanges

so the Market Typle may act as a pointer to you situation

In reply to a post by JHo1:

After reading in the news about the government making money available for rural broadband projects, I sent a polite email to my local council, linking to the news item on the BBC web site, and asking if they planned to take advantage of it. And they are. They have a project running and I have been invited to "sign up and express an interest". So I have and I've been knocking on neighbours doors to get them to sign up too. But if I hadn't asked I would not have known about this project. So ask! If you don't ask, you don't get.

Good luck,
John

it would seem that North wales is to become the wasteland of broadband connectivity according to the lists published not a single exchange in the north to be upgraded, south wales (where the assembly is, surprise surprise) is either connected or going to be connected

I know what an SMP is and clearly better regulation isn't called for as Ofcom would call for it otherwise

Re wales

thoight this might interest you

Our aim
Our aim is for everyone in Wales to access next generation broadband (at least 30Mbps) by 2015.

Next Generation Broadband project for Wales
We�re currently in the procurement phase of delivering Next Generation Broadband for Wales as set out in Economic Renewal: a new direction. First class, globally competitive digital infrastructure is also a key theme within Delivering a Digital Wales and will provide the foundation for delivering a Digital Wales.



The Next Generation Broadband project for Wales is currently conducting an European Union (EU) procurement project exercise. The stages and progress of the project is listed below.

The contract notice advertising the Next Generation Broadband for Wales tender was published on Friday February 25th 2011. Further details are available on the Sell2Wales website (External link).

Next Generation Broadband for Wales project � European Union procurement exercise
27/07/11
The Next Generation Broadband for Wales project team have now entered into dialogue phase with the remaining bidders for the contract.

Next generation broadband for Wales project� Open Market Review
31/03/11
The Welsh Assembly Government is seeking the views of the private sector to analyse current and future investments in broadband infrastructure in Wales.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Re wales

thoight this might interest you

Our aim
Our aim is for everyone in Wales to access next generation broadband (at least 30Mbps) by 2015.

Next Generation Broadband project for Wales
We�re currently in the procurement phase of delivering Next Generation Broadband for Wales as set out in Economic Renewal: a new direction. First class, globally competitive digital infrastructure is also a key theme within Delivering a Digital Wales and will provide the foundation for delivering a Digital Wales.



The Next Generation Broadband project for Wales is currently conducting an European Union (EU) procurement project exercise. The stages and progress of the project is listed below.

The contract notice advertising the Next Generation Broadband for Wales tender was published on Friday February 25th 2011. Further details are available on the Sell2Wales website (External link).

Next Generation Broadband for Wales project � European Union procurement exercise
27/07/11
The Next Generation Broadband for Wales project team have now entered into dialogue phase with the remaining bidders for the contract.

Next generation broadband for Wales project� Open Market Review
31/03/11
The Welsh Assembly Government is seeking the views of the private sector to analyse current and future investments in broadband infrastructure in Wales.

Having worked closely with WAG terms like review, excercise, dialogue usually means we're making lots of noise but doing very little.

NO nag your council for a solution that isn't dependant on BT's ageing copper loop.

Nag your council for FTTH or in low population areas Fixed Wireless.

@5km
All very well but it is highly unlikely that your council will have the funds to pay for FTTH, and can only pay for fixed wireless if it comes as a wholesale offering giving the would-be customers a choice of ISPs. I'm not aware of many/any fixed wireless operations with a wholesale offering?

Simply not true.

In Kent there is already one FTTH project (although it is questionable if it will ever be a success). First few customers should be coming on-line very soon if not already.

Who says the network would have to be open to wholesale? If that was a requirement then only Openreach could tender.

Any network would have to reach a critical mass before it is viable/necessary to provide wholesale.

And you can't claim that there is a monopoly anywhere in the UK as there is always satellite broadband from multiple providers although that comes at a price (with caps, traffic management and high latency!).

Who says open for wholesale? - http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/BDUK_D...

Who says the network would have to be open to wholesale?

IIRC its a basic requirement if state aid is to be made available.

If that really is the case then only Openreach can win the funding. So all this is a waste of time, might as well let BT invest it's on money as they will keep the local loop monopoly.

You can't have a (DSL) broadband service without paying BT some money. They hold a monopoly and funding other networks is the way to push innovation, demand, choice and growth in this market.

the way to push innovation, demand, choice and growth in this market

But how does funding a single provider with no choice of ISP the best way to do this? Surely better to insist on choice of service provided as that will drive far more innovation than the state funding a single, vertically integrated monopoly.

As evidence, look at the relatively high cost and limited range of options of some of the existing small local loop operations (fixed wireless, copper and fibre) currently available. Or look at the performance of many of the fixed wireless operations across the country, many of which were state funded and are no longer in operation, having deprived or at least delayed the arrival of better alternatives for their local communities.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that having a wholesale service to allow a choice of service providers is a requirement of having state funding, so it doesn't really matter what any of us think either way.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

So you've no idea about the set-up within Openreach? This conflict you talk about is prevented by Ofcom and chinese walls so that it does not and cannot happen. Openreach operate on their own

After approx 15 years in Sales and Technical in the private sector, can I just add this short comment to the above...

hahahahahahahahahahahahah (inhale) hahahahahahahahahahahahah, collapse laughing...

,Now, in the real work (open eye's and observe....)

In reply to a post by 5km:

NO nag your council for a solution that isn't dependant on BT's ageing copper loop.

Nag your council for FTTH or in low population areas Fixed Wireless.

So my question as a consumer is what is going to be the cost to me of viable non-BT FTTH? No point in arguing for something unless I can afford it. I know the cost of fixed wireless as I had it, it's a £50-£200 install cost as well as a subscription; and I also know that most of the people around me won't pay for it. Ditto for BT-based FTTC which I also have.

And is it inevitable that non-BT solutions are without limits, since what's the use of higher than BT speeds (up to high 30sMbps) with 25-50Gig monthly limits?

PS There is a viable alternative non-BT network (which was promoted by government): cable. The only trouble is that the national roll-out has stalled - makes no commercial sense with all the enthusiastic potential customers, does it?

Edited by deleted (Mon 29-Aug-11 17:31:55)

Dificult to come up with an exact costs but if you are in an area where BT are not enabling FTTC or FFTH I would say the cost would be unaffordable.

The best you could hope for is FTTC and even that would be very costly and if your line is very long it may need a wireless link to by pass the coper.

THe cost would very muych depend on how many people on the cabinet would take the service. If it was just you forget it unless you have won the lottery

Some people belive the rubbish that there is a chinease wall . In reality OPenreach is just a BT cost centre and they can do pretty much as they please. We have been seeing BT load up the line rental with other internalBT costs because they know all their compeitors(except Virgin) have to use the local loop so why not let them subsidise BT

The best approach is for the local loop to be split away from BT. The next best approach is for BT to be required to move it into another BT company which will not be allowed to operate end users services. You then take away the conflict.

BT currently are always two steps ahead of the regulator

BT will not want that though because they can no longer use the line rental to subsidise other parts of BT nor can they manippulate pricing to keep the competition out.

With a seperate company every one gets access to the local loop on a fair and equal basis

Ofcom decided upon it, if its not working and you have good solid reasons to show why (including breaches etc) take it up with Ofcom!

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

With a seperate company every one gets access to the local loop on a fair and equal basis

??? OR already have to do that. And how do you propose it is split out? Do you mean bought by the government?

Regulator Ofcom have been through this already and are happy with it, as its Ofcom how would be in charge of this anyway (splitting out) why would they when they are happy it works as it is.

In reply to a post by 5km:

If that really is the case then only Openreach can win the funding. So all this is a waste of time, might as well let BT invest it's on money as they will keep the local loop monopoly.

You can't have a (DSL) broadband service without paying BT some money. They hold a monopoly and funding other networks is the way to push innovation, demand, choice and growth in this market.

Why can't other providers wholesale? Greed?

In reply to a post by smurf46:

In reply to a post by 5km:

NO nag your council for a solution that isn't dependant on BT's ageing copper loop.

Nag your council for FTTH or in low population areas Fixed Wireless.

So my question as a consumer is what is going to be the cost to me of viable non-BT FTTH? No point in arguing for something unless I can afford it. I know the cost of fixed wireless as I had it, it's a £50-£200 install cost as well as a subscription; and I also know that most of the people around me won't pay for it. Ditto for BT-based FTTC which I also have.

And is it inevitable that non-BT solutions are without limits, since what's the use of higher than BT speeds (up to high 30sMbps) with 25-50Gig monthly limits?

PS There is a viable alternative non-BT network (which was promoted by government): cable. The only trouble is that the national roll-out has stalled - makes no commercial sense with all the enthusiastic potential customers, does it?

Given that most people only use it for emails and surfing, how many of them are likely to pay £25ish per month just to get faster download speeds?

Why can't other providers wholesale? Greed?

They could but who would take up the wholesale service if only covering a few thousand compared to BT covering in theory all UK homes? Sky, O2, TalkTalk etc would not be interested and would expect cheaper prices to under cut the network providers own product. That under cut only happens on BT's wholesale network because of regulation forcing BT's pricing to a level that allows competition. Just like BT prices would rise elsewhere to compensate!

Given that most people only use it for emails and surfing, how many of them are likely to pay £25ish per month just to get faster download speeds?

People that currently get less than 500kbps would likely jump on a faster service if they do any video streaming. When you consider that most on the poor speeds are on market 1 exchanges paying higher prices to start with then paying £25pm is not much of an increase.

If BT are not going to provide FTTC you would be looking at very considerably more than £25 a month plus big instalation charges

Hmmm I dunno a few thousand extras customers is a few thousand more, the consumer needs choice of ISP the wires/airwaves that get to your house shouldn't hinder that

Agreed, you only have to look at some of these localised schemes to see that.

In reply to a post by 5km:

People that currently get less than 500kbps would likely jump on a faster service if they do any video streaming. When you consider that most on the poor speeds are on market 1 exchanges paying higher prices to start with then paying £25pm is not much of an increase.

As so often this completely ignores the financial pressures on most household budgets, and on a day when mortgage banks are highlighting proposals to ring customers to warn them of the dangers of their high discretionary spending. Th'internet is an inefficient delivery mechanism for TV compared to "over the air"; and the major problem in my view with expanding high speed internet is not so much speeds as poor content. I've heard the mantra that speed is the mother of content (even less, free content), but it isn't. I even suspect that people may increasingly value their smartphone over their PC, and I don't think they require FTTH (or even FTTC) speeds. The SME sector is a small minority, but rightly (in my view) the key target of BDUK, but again they sometimes want "somin' for nowt".

Edit: To make use of high-speed internet, the costs don't stop at your broadband subscription!

Edited by deleted (Wed 31-Aug-11 08:30:11)

In reply to a post by 5km:

Given that most people only use it for emails and surfing, how many of them are likely to pay £25ish per month just to get faster download speeds?

People that currently get less than 500kbps would likely jump on a faster service if they do any video streaming. When you consider that most on the poor speeds are on market 1 exchanges paying higher prices to start with then paying £25pm is not much of an increase.

You shouldn't think that people who use this board are in any way typical of the wider population. I know many people who make minimal use of the internet and are not interested in anything more than surfing and checking emails - some of them do not even switch on their PC every day and I can't see them being willing to pay the sort of costs that Infinity are charging.

True there are always going to be a few that won't pay more or don't need a faster service yet. Prices will likely come down or their need for a faster service will increase until the point that they make the switch. If you need something you'll pay for it. If you had a job that needed you to drive to work you'd get a car or you'd not have the job. The same applies to all things, including an internet connection, well unless your an unemployed chav or retired.

In reply to a post by 5km:

True there are always going to be a few that won't pay more or don't need a faster service yet. Prices will likely come down or their need for a faster service will increase until the point that they make the switch. If you need something you'll pay for it. If you had a job that needed you to drive to work you'd get a car or you'd not have the job. The same applies to all things, including an internet connection, well unless your an unemployed chav or retired.

But that's my point - they don't need it

Then they probably wouldn't have it or use it if it was free. No business case for that, their choice to not be connected.

No one needs most things we have today. You don't need running water, electricity, TV etc. But if you're going to drag your self out of the slums and into civilisation then you need more than the cloths on your back. Although an education would be a good start!

Edited by deleted (Thu 01-Sep-11 07:38:46)

In reply to a post by 5km:

True there are always going to be a few that won't pay more or don't need a faster service yet. Prices will likely come down or their need for a faster service will increase until the point that they make the switch. If you need something you'll pay for it. If you had a job that needed you to drive to work you'd get a car or you'd not have the job. The same applies to all things, including an internet connection, well unless your an unemployed chav or retired.

I think your few actually = majority, the few are the ones who want blazing speeds and don't mind paying extra, its the other way around.

In reply to a post by 5km:

Then they probably wouldn't have it or use it if it was free. No business case for that, their choice to not be connected.

No one needs most things we have today. You don't need running water, electricity, TV etc. But if you're going to drag your self out of the slums and into civilisation then you need more than the cloths on your back. Although an education would be a good start!

I am quite happy with 8Mb. I assure you that I do not live in a slum and I do live in civilisation. I did have an education - I can even spell clothes.

Edited by michaelh (Thu 01-Sep-11 20:10:08)

Lol. Yeah my spelling isn't great, that comes from public education or lack of.

You get 6.7Mbps which I agree is fine. Although you might want faster soon but I guess at no extra cost

Any how I was referring not to you directly but the people that you say have no need for, don't want or can not afford a faster service. Doesn't mean that there isn't a market for a faster service as there are plenty of people desperate to get off unreliable ADSL connections that only run at a 100~1000Kbps.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. I think funding should be used to create alternative networks that are not reliant on BT's copper loop. This is the only way to push innovation and competition otherwise it's a win win for BT even if they are not the end provider.

I'd have thought that to create an alternative network would cost billions of pounds? Where would the money come from?

In reply to a post by 5km:

Any how I was referring not to you directly but the people that you say have no need for, don't want or can not afford a faster service. Doesn't mean that there isn't a market for a faster service as there are plenty of people desperate to get off unreliable ADSL connections that only run at a 100~1000Kbps..

Most of the people I know aren't that worried about the speed - many would be happy with 1Mb (which I agree is more than some have) - what they want is for that 1Mb to be stable which on long lines it often isn't. That doesn't mean that to get that stability they want to pay significantly more for a fibre line that happens to also provide much higher speeds - the speed does not give a justification for higher costs for many. But neither does stability necessarily justify going from a bargain basement connection at 1Mb to a super dooper FTTC connection that costs much much more.

In reply to a post by cheshire_man:

I'd have thought that to create an alternative network would cost billions of pounds? Where would the money come from?

It would indeed, which is why people live in this dream world where BT have to just "give up" their own network for free to others.

PIA will give access to BT ducts/poles which will reduce the costs of digging etc, others are welcome to build their own networks but as its a cut throat market offering rock bottom prices who will want to invest?

A lot of people on here do not understand how the market works. FTTC is expensive at the moment because BT has to recover the development & rollout costs and does not yet have the economy of scale. Even at current costs price is not really an issue for most people. Youwill though always have users who will want a rock bottom price but they are not a significant number.

There is clearly a demand for HS Broadband & the Internet is becoming essential. More and more council services for instance are now on the Internt. Increasingly bill paying is moving to the internet. More new services will come along as the number of users increase

The argument that price is an issue is largely false. Just lookl at how much people will pay for their mobile phone & how often they will change it and how much they will spend oncalls & texts

Competition with FTTC will also drive down prices at present there is no real competition

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

There is clearly a demand for HS Broadband & the Internet is becoming essential. More and more council services for instance are now on the Internt. Increasingly bill paying is moving to the internet

You do not need high-speed broadband to access such services. Conflating them weakens your argument.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Even at current costs price is not really an issue for most people. Youwill though always have users who will want a rock bottom price but they are not a significant number......................The argument that price is an issue is largely false.

And your evidence for that is?

"This conflict you talk about is prevented by Ofcom and chinese walls so that it does not and cannot happen. Openreach operate on their own"

Do they have the same shareholders as the rest of BT?

Do they have the same board members as the rest of BT?

[etc]

It'd be hilarious except it's not meant to be a joke.

Yes to the First, Yes to the Second and they also have a single set of accounts.

Not much of a chinese Wallat all. In fact there is not one.

How much do Openreach pay to use BT's ducting? No one knows

We do know though how much BT want to charge the competition for access

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Yes to the First, Yes to the Second and they also have a single set of accounts.

Not much of a chinese Wallat all. In fact there is not one.

How much do Openreach pay to use BT's ducting? No one knows

We do know though how much BT want to charge the competition for access

At current less then what other European wholesalers charge to other isps to access their network, BT's pricing may drop when we see their new prices this month, though if ofcom has to get involved to decide the prices be a year to 18+ months till they sort it out.

If you know of cause for complaint that what Ofcom depicted and is satisfied with is not happening as it should, raise it with Ofcom instead of on a forum where nothing can be done?

It is a favorite of BT to try to compare the UK with Europe. Each country is different and it is very difficult to make direct cost comparisions and exchange rates can distort things as well. Other Countries as well have higher standards of living which tends to be reflected in a huigher cost base as well. dirfferent tax regimes etc

Will have to see what the final rates are from bt, when they are announced this month.

As alot of councils will have grey area's where BDUK funds wont go, as there for white areas only. Leaving alot of people frustrated until there turn for BT's FTTC comes to them.

myu understanding is that BDUK can be used for White and Grey providing market failure can be proven

which is why councils need Black, white, Grey informaiton to understand intervention areas

What small amounts of funding that CC have gotten will go to white area's and not grey. Have that information from my local CC, who where disapointed with the amount given to the entire county.

Venture Capitalists would jump if they thought there was a profit in it, or a better return than what they get from other areas perhaps.

We experimented with alternate local loops with the cable co's which has led to dual loops in 50% of the UK. Now prize for why that stops at around 50%?

Hint to do with profits and the recovery of the costs for building the network.

Do we need yet another duct running up and down pavements, gas, water, electricity, cable, telephone already