In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Just because people don't consumer TerraBytes of data, does not mean they would not appreciate the ability to download what they do faster.

indeed. Provisioning them with 100 kbits/s each instead of 50 would probably help, rather than changing the peak speed of the access line technology, perhaps ?

Yeah. I think there's two things the UK really needs right now

1.A target minimum of 5Mb/s(*) peak throughput for everyone
2.The minimum is achieved 90% of the time and is never worse than 80%.

Unfortunately I suspect the economics for that are worse than they are for yet another speed boost to the chosen few :-/

(*)Historians for this board will notice that I've raised it again in line with my policy(**).
(**)Maybe that should be rule three - target throughput is on an escalator

I dont know if you read it but I did state I feel boosting someone on a short adsl line to 40mbit I feel isnt efficient way of investing.

If FTTC was targeted at long line cabinets, it would go a long way to achieving #1.

I feel these things need to happen.

1 - start deregulating the market prices and competitiveness, small isp's will die but this will be good in the long term, with the single sole purpose of driving up retail prices. We bang on about commercial viability, this will fix that.
2 - increase regulation on selling practices, with the sole purposes of driving up product quality.
3 - classify broadband as a utility and as such it should have new guidelines on how its deployed with respect to whats expected across different areas.
4 - give the chance for BT and VM to stay in the game under these new rules, if either state they feel they cannot do business under such an environment then pay the shareholders off and take state ownership of local loops.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 09-Feb-11 20:08:05)

l boosting someone on a short adsl line to 40mbit I feel isnt efficient way of investing.

the article in the OP suggests that it's BT's only hope of staying in the game or growing in dense urban areas with VM present.

Investment analysis isn't hard, you have known costs on one hand and forecast extra cashflow on the other. What services people have now are neither here nor there, other than the impact they have on the extra cashflow.

I thought Leicester was getting FTTC? I know FTTx apprentices working in that area.

leicester, and its even worse in derby and nottingham

don't they all have cable ? that and propping up the economic league appear to be common factors.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

leicester, and its even worse in derby and nottingham

don't they all have cable ? that and propping up the economic league appear to be common factors.

What Phil said. Between the low incomes and having to share customers with the ever-discounting Virgin Media there's not a massive amount of prospect for return on investment.

Even less prospect than places that are affluent with no cable.

this is the point I am making, as an end user I have no concern if its viable commercially, my concern is infrastructure improvement.

As far as I am concerned if its not viable to rollout an improvement in cities (the uk is way behind in urban areas) then the market has failed and another approach is needed, ignition has noted that the uk is lagging in densely populated urban areas.

Incidently its not just about I am alirght jack attitude either, leicester is just one of many cities that will be ignored by BT, and not all of them have cable.

at least you guys are admitting now urban areas arent staying ahead and there is a link to affluency. You may see nothing wrong with pushing more money into places where the richest are but I do. There is no historical broadband data showing this strategy is a winner either, its the first time I have heard of a telecom company rolling out based on affluency, normally population density is the prime factor.

By the way hinckley has cable, and it has it faster (already got VM upgrades), its picked for FTTC.

Now we at the stage where BT are going to skip the poor then it means state involvement is needed.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

arent you the one who says you want HDTV VOD before will use it? That wont happen until there is enough people with FTTx connectivity.

If then. See my previous thread.

II expect will happen within 2 years when much more of the country has BT's FTTC and especially when sky have customers on FTTC.

I think your optimism is misplaced.

Still - I'm not sure you understand my position. You seem to be trying to persuade me of how good FTTx is. You don't have to. I already want it.

The problem is that I can distinguish between what I want and what other people might want. I also know the difference between want and need. If we want a decent NGA roll-out (FTTP in urban areas, FTTC everywhere else as a minimum) then we need something with mass appeal or something that is essential.

No-one has ever convinced me that such a product or collection of product exists. I wish they could.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 09-Feb-11 21:52:34)

I know what other people want, is as ignition said. They want the speed but they want it also for nothing. Thanks to ofcom policy.

There is no historical broadband data showing this strategy is a winner either

debatable. They started out providing ADSL to council estates and urban hellholes and the takeup was low, so they stopped the rollout in favour of a demand led approach. The affluent got motivated and exceeded their trigger levels and got ADSL soonest, so maybe there is data that shows the affluent areas are a better bet.

Look at the race to infinity, that wasn't won by high population urban areas, was it. Leicester Central with 18,000 connections got half the votes of my 2000 line exchange. Braunstone got less than us with 12,800 lines. QED. Lack of demonstrable demand.

IMHO i think bt should be renewing their infrastructure, so that existing adsl can work without all the problems it currently has,never mind rolling out fibre just for fast speeds, it should be about quality