Because Broadband and the range of frequencies it uses are totally unlike any of the other utilities technically.


Also it is delivered over the existing phone lines, which by default rather than design, were only intended to handle from DC (0 Hertz or Cycles Per Second) to 4,500 Hz; and basically only one "message" link at a time.

Broadband is highly demanding and with most of the frequencies involved, up to around 17 Mega Hertz, covers the same range as a multi-band radio.

In that radio analogy, using conventional modulation, you have the potential of up to 1,700 "messages" or radio stations, @ 10 KHz each..

So the ability to handle the equivalent over a phone line not intended for the purpose, is close to miraculous.

My lady-wife bought new DECT phones at Christmas 2014; and we quickly had to abandon them, because of problems with our 40/10 BB.

Our much older/earlier DECT phones were reinstated quickly; and have never caused any obvious problems.

if he had had a managed install that probalbly would have rectified by the engineer but as you went for a self install that why the speed if off -- because the speed at the NTE will be fine

Well, in that case it should be priced on the speed you get based on the external infrastructure, not as a fixed 'up to' price. The fact is for most of us on FTTC we have no choice.

Broadband is no different from electricity supply, you need substations within sufficient distance of properties to meet demand. The simple fact is that OR do not provide cabs near enough to some people's properties but still want to charge them based on an unachievable supply, and that just isn't good enough.

As to the 'miraculous' issue, I can assure you that I understand the technical issues - my background is electronics - but this is not a technical issue, it's a commercial one, of mis-selling a product.

The simple fact is that OR do not provide cabs near enough to some people's properties but still want to charge them based on an unachievable supply, and that just isn't good enough.

This rather depends on the proportion of the monthly cost that is used to provide and support the infrastructure and that used to transmit the data. For the most part installation and support costs are independent of the final speed achieved but heavily influenced by the terrain and the like. As with many other things in life it is up to the end user to decide whether the cost is acceptable and shouldn't I feel try to compare that cost to what others are paying for a possibly different service (e.g. cable of FTTP/H) in another location. For example there are many paying more than the OP for a slower ADSL/ADSL2+ service but don't have the option to move to anything faster.

Ultimate solution is a bill split into four components

1. Physical layer
2. Price per Mbps that is based on the maximum speed you can get
3. Tiered speeds so people can pick between 10/2 20/3 40/10. 60/15 and 80/20 product tiers for example - different commit rates apply on these just as with current products
4. Pay per GB downloaded and uploaded

Then people will clearly be able to see what they are paying for and have total transparency.

Yes, this would be much more transparent... if only!

Problem is, you don't know what speed you will actually get until you have had it installed.And then (with BT) you're locked in for 12 months before your can change.

1. Physical layer

And here the costs will again vary user by user, cab by cab, as BT's (or even BDUK's) installation and maintenance costs will vary considerably dependent on location, terrain and number of users served.

And given the permutations and increased billing complexity likely to be much more expensive.

The pay per GB has been tried and no provider has ever made a big success of it