How do we persuade OpenReach...............?

How do we persuade BTW/OpenReach to replace a faulty cable in the road?

They hide behind an outdated line specification for voice transmission which pretty well relates to dial-up speeds for internet access. If we complain, we are told that broadband is a "Best Effort" and nothing will be done so long as the line meets the voice spec.

OpenReach engineers openly admit that they are unable to find a fault-free D-side. The line is marked as "degraded" and the banding is lowered accordingly so that the range covers where the line currently performs on broadband.

To aggravate matters, the DLM seems to have an objective of zero CRC errors, which results in the line being trained lower and lower in speed, to the extent that it reached a point where it was 2Mb download sync, compared to other places in the same road where the user gets 7Mb.

Any bright ideas gratefully received.

Thanks

Get as many of your affected neighbours to complain directly to the Openreach CEO.

the answer is you probably cant.

I suspect there is various areas around the country that have a mess of local cabling where entire pair bundles need replacing, but openreach had a choice to make, either spend what is probably a lot of money to fix, if they did do this it probably would be cheaper to just rollout FTTP, as thats how much I expect fixing would cost. Or ignore it and then be agressive in fending of consumers.

A isp in america had massive floods wreck much of their underground cabling, the state of the even unflooded copper was really bad, cables literally were rotting away and joints held together very fragile that blowing on them would break them apart. The isp simply replaced it all with FTTP as was cheaper than fixing the copper.

In reply to a post by Ribble:

Get as many of your affected neighbours to complain directly to the Openreach CEO.

Thanks, Ribble, Got any contact details please?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

the answer is you probably cant.

I suspect there is various areas around the country that have a mess of local cabling where entire pair bundles need replacing, but openreach had a choice to make, either spend what is probably a lot of money to fix, if they did do this it probably would be cheaper to just rollout FTTP, as thats how much I expect fixing would cost. Or ignore it and then be agressive in fending of consumers.

A isp in america had massive floods wreck much of their underground cabling, the state of the even unflooded copper was really bad, cables literally were rotting away and joints held together very fragile that blowing on them would break them apart. The isp simply replaced it all with FTTP as was cheaper than fixing the copper.

Thanks Chrysalis. It's worse because the old wiring is aluminium in bad condition.

Liv Garfield is the CEO. Google will do the rest for you.

This pretty well sums up BT's attitude to faults and the customer. VM customers moan, but BT are something else! Cable Forum

Shame it is Aluminium! if copper some friendly local thieves could have been persuaded to recover the old cable for BT, who would then have replaced it with nice new cable.

Only joking of course, but probalbly the quickest way to get a new cable!

And who will pay?

The line meets the voice requirements but fails on broadband. BT could spend tens of thousands in replacing the cable and get no additional broadband revenue and. End users could all sign up with other ISPs so they get the real benefit rather than BT. There would be minimal return on investment. The restrictions and controls placed by OFCOM really do hinder BT at times

I wonder if your perspective would be different if you were on a struggling connection...? (and paying BTw line rental etc. etc.)

I see both sides of it. One of my homes has a slow connection - and almost no chance of an upgrade. Even regional funding will not give us anything.

If this is an ADSL2+ service, then it may be worth looking at moving to a provider will no DLM or at least a less onerous one.

Openreach has a track record of not repairing infrastructure as you've found, the problem is getting the collective reporting to the volume level such that Openreach will take notice. The local engineers may know the problem, but have no authority to fix it.

Are you a BT shareholder worried about the effect this might have on your share price?

By that token why should BT ever do any network maintenance beyond the bare minimum? If it's running a manageable voice service to hell with anything else.

I presume you are in your last sentence suggesting that BT should be entitled to a completely vertically integrated service.

Wow, that works so well in the USA with Verizon and AT&T. The level of competition there is truly phenomenal, the prices a bargain.

If you're really lucky you're in one of the large sections of Verizon's network that they decided not to upgrade but instead sold off that doesn't even have ADSL 2+ and costs a fortune.

Sometimes companies of all kinds have to spend money that delivers no additional revenue. That's business, that's life. In the case of someone like BT, fortunate enough to be privatised with the assets they were, a level of control is absolutely essential to ensure something approaching a working market.

In reply to a post by MHC:

I see both sides of it. One of my homes has a slow connection - and almost no chance of an upgrade. Even regional funding will not give us anything.

Sell it to someone who'll actually use it as a home 365 days a year, problem solved.

If OR did allow only broadband and not have a voice requirement the amount of money they would lose is too high. It's the same if they were to fix all their broadband faults, they are simply hiding behind old legislation.

and I expect due to lots of lobbying that old legislation remains in place.

My old MP who was an ex cabinet minister is now on BT's board.

Not sure Openreach can afford to fix every bit of network to the standard people want to hold them too at least not at the price most of us want to pay for a residential/sme service.

Also a badly performing openreach should make it easy and attractive for all those people with millions to invest to build an alt network, i.e. wipe the floor with openreach by doing it better and faster.

openreach know full well that for a serious competitor to emerge (more than just the odd village) such a company would have to spend billions and as such is very unlikely to happen.

I suspect one such reason we have no state FTTP rollout is lobbying from BT. Realistically a state owned rollout is the only way BT will get local loop competition.

Then we have what MHC stated the situation, why would BT spend to fix their network when they know the consumer isnt going anywhere regardless?

Another interesting thing now is that the vectoring trials seem to only be producing speed increases of circa 10mbit which seems really poor given various people are reporting speeds drops much higher then that, so is it now possibly the case the huge speeds drops people are seeing are not all crosstalk related but rather a degrading network. We never know because openreach seem to actually only investigate very few faults, I suspect a fair chunk dont even make it to openreach due to threat of charges.

Ofcom did tell me that they plan to review the callout fee's as part of the margin squeeze test.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 28-Nov-13 17:29:15)

And if it was state owned it would be the first thing to feel the squeeze when government need to reduce costs or shift funding. Do you really want the funding for broadband to be competing with funding for NHS/roads/education/etc? It would lose every time.

We used to call it the GPO� no thanks.

I know, although it was slightly before my time. It is this expectation that making something state owned will suddenly mean it will spend money to make everything right for people - it is more likely less money would be spent and we probably wouldn't have anything near what we have now.

OpenReach doesn't have to be fully taken over. As I recall, back in the day, BP was 51% owned by the government with the rest being privately owned and it didn't appear to inhibit BP's operations. Don't see why the same couldn't be done with Openreach.

At least the government/taxpayer would receive a dividend payment on that part of the company it owned.

In reply to a post by ian72:

I know, although it was slightly before my time.

It was well within mine� I lived in Newbury and until the early/mid 1970's when you wanted to make a phone call you lifted the receiver and waited for the operator to take the number and connect you.

The white heat of technology hit a big bucket of cold water when it came up against the GPO

And where would the Billions come from to buy the shares? They Government could always borrow it at around 5 or 6% interest and get a 1or 2% return on the investment!

That is the easiest question I've had in a while... HS2.

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Nov-13 09:42:13)

HS2 does not have any money - it will be funded by loans at 5 to 6% interest. So, the question still stands.

In reply to a post by MHC:

And where would the Billions come from to buy the shares? They Government could always borrow it at around 5 or 6% interest and get a 1or 2% return on the investment!

Fair point, but I don't think the dividend on BT shares is that low although I agree there may be some dilution due to a greater number of shares. It probably depends on exactly how you do it. If you include externalities - greater spread of broadband with greater business efficiency, fibre to the home - then whilst the monetary returns might not be great, the overall benefit to the economy would make up for it. Current funding pushed through BDUK seems inefficient - doing it via a part nationalisation might be a better way.

Edited by Tacitus (Fri 29-Nov-13 11:05:42)

just look at how tightly regulated Openreach's costs are. Most of BTs real profit comes from business comms and not residential or OR activities.

In reply to a post by MHC:

They Government could always borrow it at around 5 or 6% interest and get a 1or 2% return on the investment!

What?

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/governm...

Could always have the BoE print it. Isn't like they haven't monetised 350bln of gilts already or anything.

Internet communications has joined energy, rail etc as one of the many markets that the UK government has broken. The older I get the more cynical I get... it seems government just set these markets up to benefit their mates in large companies. Why else would they continue to engage with BT? BT, like most large companies these days, is run by bean counters who care about cutting costs to get to their next quarterly statement with something positive to say. They don't even care about building a larger, more robust business, innovative technologies or anything like that, they just want to keep the pension funds that invest in their shares happy and their CxOs in nice big bonuses.

It is possible for new entrants to build their own network; look at what Google is doing in the States. They are decimating the incumbents in the few locations they have entered (Kansas... not sure if they've gone elsewhere).

The trouble is this requires massive infrastructure investment and as the government would rather spend some money on a few train sets rather than a 21st century telecommunications network (FTTC is a pitiful enough attempt to appease the masses) we're going to slip further and further behind. The government *could* do something by investing for the future and actually opening a *real* market to *many* competitors, but it would rather just hand taxpayer cash to BT.

Maybe the only sensible thing to do is hedge it by purchasing BT, British Gas, npower et al shares... That said I could've said the same thing about Railtrack!

And what is googles motivation for building the very small number of networks that they have? I bet they aren't going to make any money off the connections themselves. Doing something like that as a loss leader for publicity when you have googles money is fine - but unfortunately few places will get that sort of investment.

In the end people in the UK don't want to pay more than a few quid for broadband (barring a small percentage who generally post places like here). When you are working off those margins you will never get high investment (shareholders or taxpayers expect some sort of payback for their investment).

It's nothing, or little, to do with publicity. Google's core business depends on people using the Internet as much as possible. Therefore their interest is in *delivering* as much of the Internet as possible. That's why they're doing it. That's why they're pursuing other innovative approaches to Internet provision in Africa... hot air balloons etc.

I fully agree that investment won't happen from private sources unless there's something in it for them. It can come from public sources, however, by diverting finances away from elsewhere, and is exactly the sort of infrastructure spending that should be made.

and private companies dont squeeze? Am I missing something but the fact openreach are very agressively fighting of customers so they can avoid spending to fix faulty cabling is doing what you just said.

think of it this way,. the state gets it built.

10 years later they decide they dont want it they sell it.

probably better than waiting 20 years for it to come via private sector.

sometimes for things to get done thats how its done. I wonder how things would be if nothing was state funded, itsnt it a coincidence infrastructure projects plummet at the same times governments reduce expenditure on capital projects.

so to me there is no difference between a state owned company squeezing costs and shareholders trying to bleed a company dry. I take the one which gets things done fastest.

What is worse than both tho is a private company getting infrastructure using subsidies yet taking all the profits.

The reality is the money wouldnt come from education, there is always some myth that the money isnt there it has to be taken from a key budget blah blah, yet HS2 got funded, tax cuts got funded bank bailouts got funded. The money is always there. Its the willpower thats not there.

Plus I think infrastructure is arguable as important as education, there is no point in educating people when the future of the country is we cant compete due to lack of infrastructure.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 29-Nov-13 21:05:26)

So openreach's profits at a billion+ just a quarter I am dreaming?

If you think BT is more financially capable than the government as well you in another world than mine.

Actually I would be interested in hearing how Openreach turn a revenue of £1.2 billion into a profit of over a billion?

http://www.btplc.com/News/ResultsPDF/q213_release.pdf

They say it is an operating profit of £287m So is Openreach lying to the tune of 800m?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

So openreach's profits at a billion+ just a quarter I am dreaming?

If you think BT is more financially capable than the government as well you in another world than mine.

Yes, you are dreaming.

Openreach total revenue across ALL areas for 2012/13 was £5.2Bn and the surplus (not profit) was around £1.4Bn and part of that then funds head office operations and the R&D carried out by BT.

In reply to a post by gravelld:

FTTC is a pitiful enough attempt to appease the masses

The ideal would be ubiquitous FTTP, but that's roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the predominantly FTTC roll-out we have got.


FTTC roll-out takes fibre deeper into the network, which is enabling for future deeper fibre systems (including FTTP and FTTDP).

FTTC delivers considerable speed boosts to many users at a price many UK consumers are willing to pay. For a small extra monthly amount, I've gone from 16/1 Mbit/s ADSL2+ to 80/20 Mbit/s FTTC, which makes a significant difference to my increasingly cloud based Internet usage. That said, I recognise that I'm fortunate in the FTTC speed lottery, living relatively close to the cabinet with a decent D side pair.

FTTC that falls into the superfast bracket (>30 Mbit/s downstream) is good enough for most current residential usage scenarios. Indeed, if I understand MrSaffron and other posters correctly, those with ADSL2+ speeds close to the maximum possible 24 Mbit/s downstream speed often choose to stick with the ADSL2+ service they have rather than paying to upgrade to FTTC.


There are always those who have a usage scenario that demands higher speeds than Openreach can deliver to their property. As I said, I'd love to see ubiquitous FTTP - but I'm a pragmatist. It's better to have what can be afforded now and recognise that it lays the foundations for future deeper fibre.

I'm very grateful Openreach have rolled out FTTC in the area where I live, rather than leaving us waiting whilst they tried to justify raising the money to bring FTTP to this predominantly dormitory town.

I'd certainly take FTTP if offered it at around the same money I'm paying for FTTC, as I'd love to be rid of the vagaries of RF transmission over unshielded twisted pairs. However, 80/20 Mbit/s is more than sufficient for my needs at present. Few can justify a large premium to get a similar service via a more robust and future-proof technology.

In reply to a post by David_W:

those with ADSL2+ speeds close to the maximum possible 24 Mbit/s downstream speed often choose to stick with the ADSL2+ service they have

As crosstalk converges FTTC speeds towards high ADSL2+ speeds .

no, I just read it wrong. Dont try and twist what I said into something else.

You have just come across as a bit defensive of BT. Correct my mistake but dont try and put another slant on it.

The figure suggests really that openreach is only viable by creating a policy of fault denial. No wonder they are so agressive in terms of fending of consumers, although at the same time they are able to fund a FTTC rollout whilst generating a profit.

My 2 issues mainly are in that (a) FTTP still looks over a decade away and (b) openreach are not playing fair on faults.

Well, thank you for all your contributions, which have generated some heat but not a huge amount of light.

It is clear to me that BT OpenReach will not do anything that is not in their commercial interest, which is hardly surprising.

It all comes down to the revenue they can expect from a particular outlay. Small industrial estates are lowest in their pecking order as there is not much in it for them, whether it is repairing wiring or providing FTTC. By the same token, such sites are unattractive to competitors. In some cases, where there is existing revenue in the street from expensive leased lines (for larger/national companies), it is positively against BT's interest to offer FTTC or FTTP.

The only solution to the wiring maintenance issue is a new Universal Service Obligation (USO) for broadband services so that BT can no longer hide behind the ancient spec for telephony which is their only USO at present.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If this is an ADSL2+ service, then it may be worth looking at moving to a provider will no DLM or at least a less onerous one.

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that the DLM was an OpenReach provision, and would not vary by ISP. If that's wrong, how do we find out the DLM policy for different ISPs?

ADSL has it's own seperate DLM and is ran by BT Wholesale.

Openreach run the DLM on VDSL2.

For ADSL2+ the DLM is in control of who runs the DSLAM the choices are

BT Wholesale based
Sky LLU based
TalkTalk LLU based
C&W LLU based

As for which will work best, it is a tough one as some people can get the other three to tweak at request, and others fail. So hard to say which one, as not lived with the line to learn its nuances.

In reply to a post by jimsym:

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that the DLM was an OpenReach provision, and would not vary by ISP.

FTTC DLM is an Openreach provision, which is probably what you have read, and doesn't vary by ISP.

For the rest, see MrSaffron's reply, being the more accurate of the two already posted.

Additionally, on FTTC via BT Wholesale elements of the BT Wholesale DLM are superimposed. Mainly the (hardly perceptible on FTTC and IMHO normally irrelevant) IP Profile system and as a vehicle for passing ISP setup requests to the Openreach one that actually controls the connection.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 02-Dec-13 09:33:41)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

For ADSL2+ the DLM is in control of who runs the DSLAM the choices are

Thanks for the clarification; This is ADSL 2+ service using BTW.

To overcome the issue at present, the ISP has over-ridden the DLM and set banding on the line to a target SNR. It is effective and so far the line is very stable and as fast as it ever is. The ISP claims this is "bespoke" and "temporary" and not really a solution.

Is this right, please?

I think they would rather the customer lived with the result of the DLM at less than half the download speed we are getting at the moment, for reasons I am unable to fathom.

Edited by deleted (Mon 02-Dec-13 11:09:50)

As I said, I'd love to see ubiquitous FTTP - but I'm a pragmatist. It's better to have what can be afforded now and recognise that it lays the foundations for future deeper fibre.

Mmmmm. The trouble is you're couching your assumptions in the environment dictated by monoliths like OpenReach, ReallyBigCorp PLC and so on. What you describe is "pragmatic" only to them, and the UK government.

I actually agree that as you say this could be a stepping stone. We should be rolling out FTTP and FTTC should be offered to everyone, cap in hand, as an apology for inaction in the years before FTTP roll out is complete. But do you really think that will happen? Every link in the chain will do what they can to avoid it. Capitalism in the West is simply not cut out for long term investment anymore.

One person's "pragmatism" is another person's short sightedness. While we're being "pragmatic" other countries are rolling out an infrastructure that will not only pay for itself but allow them to trade, learn and live better.