In reply to a post by ian72:

At the wholesale level, as I say, there are hundreds that buy from BT. At the exchange level there may be up to about 10 who do LLU.

But not at the OP's exchange, Dawley, which is what I think part of the complaint is about.

Edited by Wagstaff (Wed 31-Aug-11 09:22:25)

In reply to a post by Wagstaff:

In reply to a post by ian72:

At the wholesale level, as I say, there are hundreds that buy from BT. At the exchange level there may be up to about 10 who do LLU.

But not at the OP's exchange, Dawley, which is what I think part of the complaint is about.

I was attempting to give a full explanation. I am aware that the exchange has only 1 LLU supplier but there are many ISPs. BT and TalkTalk both wholesale their products so there are loads of available ISPs. This is far more choice than in most other countries.

In reply to a post by ian72:

This is far more choice than in most other countries.

Both you and Bob (RobertoS) have referred to the choice of ISPs in other countries, but where are the statistical analyses showing the comparisons - and are they comparing like with like ?

Sorry, the boot is actually on the other foot. You seem to think they are wrong. So where is your statistical evidence or are you relying on your own assumptions.

In reply to a post by anon1:

You seem to think they are wrong. So where is your statistical evidence or are you relying on your own assumptions.

I don't know whether they are right or wrong - I just tried to look for the comparisons and could really only find information on broadband penetration.

The problem, I think, is that if you have unexplained poor ADSL or ADSL2, and unless you are "saved" by new tech such as FTTC or the less likely fixed wireless, as I have been; you have no certainty that a change of ISP will improve the position. And you may well end up no better off and both paying more for your broadband and locked into a long contract. It's a hobson's choice, and I was in that position with Orange and frankly didn't know which way to jump.

You could I suppose impose short minimum term contracts by regulation, but we'd be paying more and it'd upset everybody. You can fight to get out during a "trial" period, but it's a hassle with no guarantee you get back what you've lost (and not if it was one of those "special deals" that abound). The broadband lottery.

EDIT: why when they are both regulated consumer industries, are my utility supply contracts for e.g. gas and electricity for a minimum period, subject to early termination payments of £10 or so, but for phones and broadband the loss of income over the minimum contract term (less a small discount for early payment)? It implies virtually the whole subscription is profit, since each individual subscriber doesn't add to the, largely fixed, costs?

Edited by deleted (Wed 31-Aug-11 12:48:14)

In reply to a post by smurf46:

The problem, I think, is that if you have unexplained poor ADSL or ADSL2, and unless you are "saved" by new tech such as FTTC or the less likely fixed wireless, as I have been; you have no certainty that a change of ISP will improve the position. And you may well end up no better off and both paying more for your broadband and locked into a long contract. It's a hobson's choice, and I was in that position with Orange and frankly didn't know which way to jump.

You could I suppose impose short minimum term contracts by regulation, but we'd be paying more and it'd upset everybody. You can fight to get out during a "trial" period, but it's a hassle with no guarantee you get back what you've lost (and not if it was one of those "special deals" that abound). The broadband lottery.

EDIT: why when they are both regulated consumer industries, are my utility supply contracts for e.g. gas and electricity for a minimum period, subject to early termination payments of £10 or so, but for phones and broadband the loss of income over the minimum contract term (less a small discount for early payment)? It implies virtually the whole subscription is profit, since each individual subscriber doesn't add to the, largely fixed, costs?

I was only clarifying the situation in case there was a misconception here (that others I know have held) that BT are the only ISP on many exchanges - I know plenty of people that are with BT because they didn't realise other ISPs existed.

I am not saying the market or the technology is perfect. It is more open than I believe it is in many other places (and I am basing this on some previous trips to the states where the Internet was provided by cable and that there was only a single supplier because of that - they don't require wholesaling by the incumbent supplier).

I also suspect the utilities are more grown up due to them being around for longer. Ofcom I seem to remember made telcos only charge a maximum level for ending phone contracts but this hasn't yet come to broadband - maybe it will.

There are ISPs out there with short contracts that actually are pretty good at delivering. There are also ISPs that are much better at dealing with issues on long lines - even where they are not LLU. But, in the end ADSL is a sticking plaster on a very old telephone system that wasn't designed for it and therefore there will always be compromises. Fibre to the home of course is the ideal solution at the moment but is expensive and who knows, in the next 10-20 years there will probably be new methods of delivering high speed broadband that could replace fibre and then everyone will be complaining about the outdated fibre technology and 2Gbps won't be enough to deliver the super high def experience we will all expect.

In reply to a post by Wagstaff:

Both you and Bob (RobertoS) have referred to the choice of ISPs in other countries, but where are the statistical analyses showing the comparisons - and are they comparing like with like ?

I think if you read my post more carefully you will find I was suggesting the OP looks into that.

From what I know, I think he would find that quite enlightening, and he would be far more convinced by his own research than by any statistics provided here by any of us.

As for not comparing like with like, that is exactly the error that people saying other countries are better than here fall into. So that part of your question is highly relevant.

Cant provide sources without spending an afternoon digging, but as one who reads a fair amount of bumpf from oecd and other places it is fair to say that the UK has one of the most competitive broadband markets in types of consumer choice and price at the retail level.

Where we fail is on choice of higher speeds, but that is changing, 50% can get 50Meg at a price that is not unlike faster services elsewhere.

The impression I get from press and public at times, is that they forget that DSL and its physics are the same world wide.

In reply to a post by smurf46:

... why when they are both regulated consumer industries, are my utility supply contracts for e.g. gas and electricity for a minimum period, subject to early termination payments of £10 or so, but for phones and broadband the loss of income over the minimum contract term (less a small discount for early payment)? It implies virtually the whole subscription is profit, since each individual subscriber doesn't add to the, largely fixed, costs?

The bulk of the subscription on anything except Virgin Cable is the Openreach charge for supplying any broadband service from the exchange to the premises.

The rest has to pay for the wholesale ISP's infrastructure before the wholesaler and retailer have any profit to split.

The profit margins for the ISPs are very small. So their only requiring a one-month contract is even more commendable than at first sight. On the other hand the bigger ones need to lock people in for longer because of the huge overheads they incur in staying big. Advertising in particular.