Really close. Just at bottom of road. When it does get upgraded I should get the full speed.

In reply to a post by kingbiscit:

It's not a cost issue. Connecting Cheshire made the estate the first phase as a priority. But openreach can do it in what order they want. So why do my estate with zero competition when other villages have Virgin.

Connecting Cheshire (your BDUK project) cannot subsidise any BT cabinets where Virgin have coverage.

If your cabinet is not getting upgraded yet, it is due to something other than BT choosing to spend the subsidy competing with Virgin.

Because the more you download the higher the 95th percentile charging for the capacity to the ISP goes up.

Nope don't understand that. BT operates my broadband and BT is my ISP.

The real issue with rolling out a good service to all, is the accountants. Like a good many companies BT salami slices their operating region into areas, each of which has to show profit. They have no concept of subsidizing those areas deemed less profitable from those that are. It's about time BB was deemed a Utility - although I don't know for sure what difference that would make

Finally, if charging by speed then you would also have to offer the slower speed packages to the properties that could get better speeds - otherwise why should people that just happen to be able to get 40Mb/s but only want 2Mb/s pay a premium?

This is not hard to do since the ISP can jut apply an IP Profile for a specific speed band.

In reply to a post by kingbiscit:

It's not a cost issue. Connecting Cheshire made the estate the first phase as a priority.

Ah, sorry I missed that detail. As you say BT can do things in whatever order they want and it has to be that way. Only BT knows what needs to be done and only BT can decide the most efficient way to do it. CC have no idea where BT's cables go or how best to upgrade an area. The have to leave it to openreach to plan the actual work.

Openreach may have decided to tackle another area where they can upgrade more people in a shorter time period. Or perhaps they need specialist equipment for your area and unfortunately it's tied up elsewhere. Or it could be a third party - power supply to the cabinet being a bit of a thorny issue sometimes.

Edited by Andrue (Tue 18-Aug-15 13:59:55)

it is a new estate there is also some responsiliblity on the developer tto ensure good infrastructure in provided for new homes

This is not hard to do since the ISP can jut apply an IP Profile for a specific speed band

It still doesn't equate to cost though.

If I have an FTTC line capable of 80Mb/s then I could pay for 80Mb/s, 40Mb/s or perhaps add on 20Mb/s, 10Mb/s, 2Mb/s.

The actual cost for BT OR providing me the 2Mb/s version is identical to them providing the 80Mb/s. No difference in operating costs, running costs, maintenance costs, etc, etc. The only difference is how much I use the connection and when as that drives how much backhaul that needs to be bought. A heavy user on 2Mb/s could easily cost more to run than a light user on 80Mb/s.

This is why charging by connection speed doesn't work. That is not where the differential costs are - the differential is in the backhaul.

I was reading some comments on bbc page and someone suggested openreach should have to charge on what the line is capable of. So have tiers based on max speed. Is this not a possible solution?

There are also those who feel that BT should charge based on the cost of installing and providing the service. Supplying low density and/or remote rural locations is undoubtedly more expensive than supplying more populated urban locations.

In reply to a post by Spuriousfish:

The real issue with rolling out a good service to all, is the accountants. Like a good many companies BT salami slices their operating region into areas, each of which has to show profit. They have no concept of subsidizing those areas deemed less profitable from those that are. It's about time BB was deemed a Utility - although I don't know for sure what difference that would make

You are wrong there. BT does subsidise less profitable or loss making areas. Take some of the remote locations in Scotland - every year there is likely to be a cable brought down - a cable feeding one or two properties. It may take a full day for two technicians to restore service at a cost of £1000. The line rental does not go anywhere near that. Or what of an exchange building that has maybe just 25 lines - cost effective and profitable? NIO, subsidised by those in the cities. BT cannot cross-subsidise across products but certainly does geographically.

In reply to a post by ian72:

A heavy user on 2Mb/s could easily cost more to run than a light user on 80Mb/s.

And it does happen! A friend is on an ADSL line running at around 1 to 1.5 Mbps and his combined Down + Up data volume is probably higher than mine on a connection running at 75Mbps. My downloads tend to be measured in seconds - last time I was there, he was running a data transfer that took over an hour.

You are wrong there. BT does subsidise less profitable or loss making areas. Take some of the remote locations in Scotland - every year there is likely to be a cable brought down - a cable feeding one or two properties. It may take a full day for two technicians to restore service at a cost of £1000. The line rental does not go anywhere near that. Or what of an exchange building that has maybe just 25 lines - cost effective and profitable? NIO, subsidised by those in the cities. BT cannot cross-subsidise across products but certainly does geographically.

Actually I do live in a remote area of Scotland and because we are few in number the number of faults is less than in a city area in total. All our cables are underground from the nearest large village. Faults that do occur are more often or not those caused by BT themselves as Openreach always seem to be messing around with something. Personally I think they come here to hide, since mobile coverage is sparse

But if they do subsidize less profitable areas why wont they extended the fibre service to us folks just 8-10km away from the last cabinet. Because its not profitable.

Just as another example Plusnet, who I used to be with, could not offer me the same price as a city dweller as 'we were outside their low cost area'