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.