Services on non-LLU exchanges

I seem to often read on here about people who are experiencing slow evening speeds with non-LLU services; whether it's BT, AOL, O2, Plusnet or another provider.

If people on LLU exchanges with the same ISPs are getting reasonably good evening speeds, then where does the problem lie? I'm assuming it's congestion somewhere in BT's system?

It's stupid that those on non-LLU exchanges have to pay more than those on LLU exchanges and then they get a poorer service. Only about 20% of exchanges are LLU-enabled, and most of these are in urban areas, meaning most people are connected to LLU exchanges as most people live in urban areas.

This country has always been behind when it comes to broadband; it's ridiculous. I know we've got an old copper network which would be costly to replace, but the government's never really seemed that fussed about any of it. Blair had never even heard of broadband until the latter half of 2001, despite the fact that it was being introduced into some homes from 2000.

If people on LLU exchanges with the same ISPs are getting reasonably good evening speeds, then where does the problem lie? I'm assuming it's congestion somewhere in BT's system?

The ISP buys capacity from BT for their non-LLU customers. Some ISPs buy sufficient capacity for their non-LLU customers, some don't. e.g. O2 don't, NewNet do.

In reply to a post by bluesea:

If people on LLU exchanges with the same ISPs are getting reasonably good evening speeds, then where does the problem lie? I'm assuming it's congestion somewhere in BT's system?

No. It's because few if any ISPs are prepared to pay BT for sufficient capacity. BT could shift more data and resolve these problems but it isn't a charity. It's debateable about the price point but the high costs are due in part to the fact that BT connect every exchange in the country no matter how remote. That pushes up the average cost whereas LLU operators only go to the easy exchanges.

It's stupid that those on non-LLU exchanges have to pay more than those on LLU exchanges and then they get a poorer service. Only about 20% of exchanges are LLU-enabled, and most of these are in urban areas, meaning most people are connected to LLU exchanges as most people live in urban areas.

The exchanges without LLU are, by definition, the ones that are difficult and expensive to get data to/from or which serve small populations. There's nothing stupid about it at all. It's basic economics and mostly geography. If you live in a rural area it costs more to get any form of civilisation to you. That's why urban areas were invented in the first place. Greater concentrations of people make service provision easier and cheaper.

This country has always been behind when it comes to broadband; it's ridiculous.

Ironically in this case you've got it all backwards. The UK is actually one of the best countries in the world for providing a service to remote areas. Of all the things to be annoyed about that is probably the least appropriate. Our average or top speed might be low but there are few countries where you can move into almost any house and be assured of a broadband connection.

In conclusion:You are unfairly blaming BT for this, completely ignoring a basic fact of industrialised civilisation and slagging off one of the few features of our country's network infrastructure that is above average.

IOW:Your rant is unjustified. Sorry.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 21-Oct-09 21:23:54)

Thanks for your reply. All your points are of course valid. However, I'm not talking about really remote rural exchanges, necessarily. If you live up a mountain or something then it'd be a miracle if you even got broadband. I'm talking about the exchanges which are non-LLU but are on the rural / urban fringe, specifically.

In reply to a post by bluesea:

It's stupid that those on non-LLU exchanges have to pay more than those on LLU exchanges and then they get a poorer service. Only about 20% of exchanges are LLU-enabled, and most of these are in urban areas, meaning most people are connected to LLU exchanges as most people live in urban areas.

It costs more to provide the services to non-LLU exchanges I'm afraid. Yes only 20% of exchanges are LLU'd up, however they serve over 80% of the population. They are LLU'd up precisely because of the amount of people connected to them, that and how expensive it is to unbundle them.

This country has always been behind when it comes to broadband; it's ridiculous. I know we've got an old copper network which would be costly to replace, but the government's never really seemed that fussed about any of it. Blair had never even heard of broadband until the latter half of 2001, despite the fact that it was being introduced into some homes from 2000.

No for availability we're actually very good. We are actually further behind in urban areas relative to our peers, in less urban areas we're pretty decent.

In reply to a post by bluesea:

Thanks for your reply. All your points are of course valid. However, I'm not talking about really remote rural exchanges, necessarily. If you live up a mountain or something then it'd be a miracle if you even got broadband. I'm talking about the exchanges which are non-LLU but are on the rural / urban fringe, specifically.

It's the same thing, just different numbers.

LLUOs aren't just being petty and refusing to unbundle certain exchanges for the hell of it. It's economics. They will have discussed each exchange with their accountants and engineers and the numbers meant it would make a loss. Not enough customers on that exchange or too expensive to install their equipment.

That's why people should be a little more lenient toward BT. They are only company that is prepared to serve those exchanges. Quite often it's because of their existing telephony presence and possibly because mobile phones threatened to make land lines obsolete but still - without BT a lot of people would have no BB at all.

One problem with the current LLU approach is that because the operators are cherry picking they are taking the best customers. That leaves BT trying to survive on the dregs that LLUOs don't want. In effect they make the non-LLU situation worse because it's harder for BT to make any money.