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.