BT plans UK’s largest ever investment in super-fast broadband
Sunil Sood
------
• £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
fibre by 2012
• Plans dependent on regulatory regime and certainty
• Dividend guidance reaffirmed, share buyback suspended from July 31
2008
BT today announced plans to roll out fibre-based, super-fast broadband
to as many as 10 million homes by 2012. The £1.5 billion programme
will deliver a range of services with top speeds of up to 100 Mb/s
with the potential for speeds of more than 1,000 Mb/s in the future.
The investment forms part of BT’s wider strategy of delivering next
generation broadband services nationwide. The UK already has world
leading broadband availability and this investment programme offers
the prospect of joining the world super league for broadband speeds as
well.
BT chief executive Ian Livingston said: “Broadband has boosted the UK
economy and is now an essential part of our customers’ lives. We now
want to make a step-change in broadband provision which will offer
faster speeds than ever before. This marks the beginning of a new
chapter in Britain’s broadband story.
“This is a bold step by BT and we need others to be just as bold. We
are keen to partner with people who share our vision for the next
phase of the broadband revolution. We want to work with local and
regional bodies to decide where and when we should focus the
deployment. Our aim is that urban and rural areas alike will benefit
from our investment”.
A supportive and enduring regulatory environment is essential if this
investment is to take place. Given this, BT will be discussing with
Ofcom the conditions that would be necessary to enable this programme
to progress. These include removing current barriers to investment and
making sure that anyone who chooses to invest in fibre can earn a fair
rate of return for their shareholders.
Fibre-based super-fast broadband will give customers enough speed to
run multiple bandwidth-hungry applications. So, for example, some
members of a family could be watching different high definition movies
while others were gaming or working on complex graphics or video
projects. The new services will also offer substantially improved
“upstream” speeds allowing customers to post videos, use hi-def video
conferencing and enjoy interactive hi-def gaming to the full.
BT already provides fibre to the premises of more than 120,000
businesses, and has deployed more than 10 million kilometres of fibre
in the network.
BT is committed to wholesaling its new services – unlike many other
companies and countries – thereby ensuring Britain remains the most
competitive broadband market in the world. BT will also be pressing
for any other next generation access network in the UK to be open to
other companies.
Financial details
BT plans to invest around £1.5 billion in total on the programme, of
which around £1 billion is incremental to BT’s existing expenditure
plans for fibre deployment.
BT expects its initial investment in the programme will result in
around £100 million of incremental capital expenditure in each of the
2008/09 and 2009/10 financial years, taking the total expected capital
expenditure in those years to around £3.2 billion and £3.1 billion,
respectively. The remaining incremental spend of £800 million will be
spread over the following three financial years.
Given the strategic priority of this planned investment, the Board has
decided it would be appropriate to suspend the current share buyback
programme with effect from July 31, 2008. By that date BT will have
returned in excess of £1.8 billion of the planned £2.5 billion buyback
programme.
The Board of BT remains committed to the dividend and expects to grow
dividends per share in the 2008/09 financial year.
Questions and Answers
What will be delivered? Fibre-to-the-premise (FTTP) or fibre-to-the-
cabinet (FTTC)?
We will deliver both though the exact split will be driven by the
interest shown by government and regional and local authorities. FTTP
deployment will be focused primarily on new build sites such as
Ebbsfleet and the Olympic Village whilst FTTC will be more prevalent
elsewhere.
What speeds will be delivered and where?
FTTP will deliver headline speeds of up to 100Mb whilst FTTC will
initially deliver speeds of up to 40Mb though we are investigating
technologies that can increase those speeds to more than 60Mb. In
addition to the new fibre-based services, copper-based ADSL2+ will
deliver nationwide speeds of up to 24Mb. Recent tests show the
majority of ADSL2+ customers should enjoy speeds of around 10Mb or
above with many getting substantially higher speeds. The technology is
also improving all the time.
Which areas will benefit first from this investment?
BT will work with Government and regional and local authorities on the
roll out plans. They can help ensure there is demand for fibre and so
we look forward to working with them to ensure our roll-out is demand-
driven. Our aim is that both urban and rural areas will be able to
benefit.
Will fibre only be available in large cities as has happened in other
countries?
No. Our aim is that fibre will be widely available and not just in the
major cities – unlike in some countries. Its precise deployment will
depend on the engagement of government and regional and local
authorities but there is no reason why it should not be available in a
variety of environments.
Will the UK be in a stronger position after this deployment?
Yes. This plan will deliver some of the fastest speeds in the world to
a far larger percentage of the population than in some other countries
where fibre services are largely confined to major cities.
What will happen to those parts of the UK who won’t have access to
fibre?
Those areas will have access to copper-based ADSL2+, a service
offering speeds of up to 24Mb. This will be sufficient for services
such as Hi-Definition TV. BT will roll out fibre beyond this plan if
there is sufficient demand and it can make an adequate return on its
investment.
If ADSL2+ offers sufficient speed to enjoy new services, why invest in
fibre?
Copper-based ADSL2+ will offer sufficient speed for services including
HDTV but fibre will allow people to enjoy several such services
simultaneously. It is important everyone is bold in ensuring there is
sufficient capacity for future services and our plans will ensure
this.
Is this investment dependent on Ofcom creating a new regulatory
framework?
Yes. The right regulatory environment is vital for anyone seeking to
invest. The funds required are extremely large and companies need
confidence that risk-taking can be appropriately rewarded.
Will BT exclude other companies in the way companies have in other
countries?
No. BT is totally committed to a wholesale market and so will make its
services available on an equivalent basis to all communications
providers.
Does BT believe that other next generation networks should also be
open?
Yes. BT’s firm belief is that all next generation networks in the UK
should be open as this approach will boost competition and consumers
and businesses will benefit.
What are BT’s plans post this investment?
BT will review its plans on a constant basis. If there is adequate
demand and interest for fibre-based broadband and BT can make an
adequate return, the plans would be extended.
Will fibre-based services be more expensive?
It is likely they will be at the wholesale level but the prices that
consumers and businesses will pay will be determined by the market and
not just BT.
Are “next generation broadband” and “super-fast broadband” the same
thing?
No. “Next generation broadband” refers to the family of new services
that BT will offer. These include fibre-based “super-fast” services –
such as FTTP and FTTC – as well as advanced copper-based fast services
such as ADSL2+.
Is this a good time to invest given the current “credit crunch”?
It is important that we invest for the long-term. This is a bold step
that will ensure businesses and consumers have all the speed they
require in the foreseeable future.
Are you taking action to reduce the congestion caused by services such
as the BBC’s iPlayer?
Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity
on the “backhaul” pipes that link exchanges to the core network. This
move should ensure Internet congestion is minimised. BT will also
invest significant funds in improving core network capacity. Both
measures should ensure customers on BT’s network will enjoy a higher
quality of service than those on cable networks where contention and
internet congestion has been more of an issue.
------
from http://www.btplc.com/news/articles/showarticle.cfm?articleid=efd7b1fa-52ed-45bb-b530-734fac577e94
Regards
Sunil
^^artnada^^
> ------
> • Ł1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
<snip>
And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use!
:rolleyes:
Mortimer
news:LA%ek.27129$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Sunil Sood wrote:
>> ------
>> . Ł1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
> <snip>
>
> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use!
> :rolleyes:
And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone*
who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that
giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is
far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to
a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is.
The Natural Philosopher
> "^^artnada^^" <notn...@knowanything.com> wrote in message
> news:LA%ek.27129$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Sunil Sood wrote:
>>> ------
>> <snip>
>>
>> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use!
>> :rolleyes:
>
> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone*
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is.
>
>
well served today..
And Tony Bliar might be an honest man.;-)
Sam Nelson
"Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone*
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is.
Pretty much by definition, once you reach some specific proportion of
coverage, well into the late-90s percent somewhere, there's no-one worth
bothering about left that can't get it. Customers you don't need aren't
worth the effort to sell anything to.
--
SAm.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:121612528...@proxy01.news.clara.net
Is this bit true:
"Are you taking action to reduce the congestion caused by services
such as the BBC’s iPlayer?
Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity
on the “backhaul” pipes that link exchanges to the core network."
I've not seen that reported anywhere.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
m
^^artnada^^ wrote:
> Sunil Sood wrote:
>
>>------
>>• £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
>
> <snip>
>
> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use!
> :rolleyes:
>
>
>
The Register postings contain a comment from someone that he will at
least be able to download his capped amount in 15seconds.!
Mike
ato...@hotmail.com
> The Register postings contain a comment from someone that he will at
> least be able to download his capped amount in 15seconds.!
And if it is considered infringing intellectual property rights, get
a prompt email, desist or we will cut you off.
I believe some ISP's are amending T&C's so that even if they
cut you off for infringing their T&C's you are still liable to pay
for the remainder of the contract term. Even if you have
a dead service, it is deemed that you broke the contract
and are therefore liable.
Michael R N Dolbear
Mortimer <m...@privacy.net> wrote
*everyone*
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say
that
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably
faster!) is
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have
broadband to
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is.
Everyone ?
is that 98%, 99% or 99.9% or what ?
And who is going to pay -- are you prepared to pay a surcharge so the
last 2,250 in valleys in Scotland and Wales that can't 'see'
synchronous satellites can have broadband ?
--
Mike D
naza
>
> is that 98%, 99% or 99.9% or what ?
>
> And who is going to pay -- are you prepared to pay a surcharge so the
> last 2,250 in valleys in Scotland and Wales that can't 'see'
> synchronous satellites can have broadband ?
That will probably never happen, there are places today which don't
have a decent phone service never mind broadband. As for nationwide
rollout, the cost seem to be very low compared to their previous
predication. £1.5 Billion for 40% of UK households and that's £16.5
Billion for the rest of the UK. The target date would suggest they
maybe have seen that they are having to dig up roads and they it may
be easier to put in fibre after all the labours costs are very high
for BT, compared to materials.
Its a step in the right direction, but in someway's it like BT are
shifting the blame elsewhere. They are basically saying that they will
invest is Ofcom does what they say and if not then Ofcom will be
blamed for stopping/hindering 'next generation' broadband.
By a balance they probably are targeting rural areas which already
have some fibre and making use of that. Whatever happens it will be
interesting.
The Natural Philosopher
Mm. Its not that that is the issue, as much as - say - a remote
geographical area with ten customers gasping for broadband, not being
worth cabling up..
In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the British
isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north sea.
The Natural Philosopher
I am beginning to sympathise with BT.
I remember a conference of financial types talking about alternative
energy: A german banker buttonholed me over lunch "tTell me, ja, these
schemes they are talking about, these will need goverenment subsidies to
wrk, ja?"
"As I understand it, yes"
"Then I am gone: when the government regulates the market, we stay in
business, but we never make a profit! Nein? haha!"
Privatisation of a de facto monopoly never works. Because its a monopoly
it has to be regulated. Because its regulated the taxpayers will always
scream if it makes a big profit, but no one will invest in it if it doesn't.
George Weston
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
There still is - BT's "universal service" obligation.
However, this only applies to telephone service, not internet service.
BT were very careful not to get themselves dragged into that when the
internet was invented!
George
Chris Davies
> Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity
> I've not seen that reported anywhere.
Looking at prices offered by one ISP - an EntaNet reseller - the peak
and offpeak usage limits have been increased for essentially the same
consumer subscription. (The offpeak hours have been reduced too, though,
so maybe it's swings and roundabouts.)
Chris
Michael R N Dolbear
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
British
> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>
> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
sea.
Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
it.
"service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
--
Mike D
Mortimer
news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
Oh big deal ;-) That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to
provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level of
broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, given that
they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places that have cable or
a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged to upgrade their lines
(both in terms of quality and sufficient number of pairs) and to remove any
non-compatible cabling.
The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new technology
emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and dial-up.
PeeGee
But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for
providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who want
to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced to
fully follow the existing situation where competition only serves high
profit, low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure at
non-commercial rates?
Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based on
the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
--
PeeGee
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
The Natural Philosopher
monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one of what
the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise the
uneconomic bits.
Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
Along with the national grid by and large.
That would lead to plenty of space for IPs and telcos to use that
infrastructure in a competitive way, like road hauliers use the road
network.
George Weston
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121628878...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
George
The Natural Philosopher
Precisely. Neither should be.
> George
>
>
Klunk
empty day by writing:
And if they were still in public hands we would still have dial phones
and Prestel.
If people are unhappy with what BT do, they are allowed to set up their
own network, dig up streets, provide customer connections etc.
I don't accept that other people should subsidise broadband for people
that want 'faster' services. This is a commercial, non essential service
at the end of the day. I hear plenty of small home businesses moan but
when you ask them to give away their stuff at a loss, or require a 200
year return on it they tend to shut up.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:04:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
> empty day by writing:
>
>> George Weston wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>>>
>>>> Along with the national grid by and large.
>>> Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see:
>>> http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
>>>
>>>
>> Precisely. Neither should be.
>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>
> And if they were still in public hands we would still have dial phones
> and Prestel.
>
I didn't say they should be state *run*, merely state - or council -
*subsiisded*, on a regulated and not for profit basis.
Where profit opportunities in a COMPETITIVE market exist, and thats
definitely true of ISPs and telephone companies, then I have no problem
with private companies run for profit: Where a de factyo monol;oy
exists, then at soe level that monoploy has to be regulated.
> If people are unhappy with what BT do, they are allowed to set up their
> own network, dig up streets, provide customer connections etc.
>
Actually, that is very very hard to do.
Also, BT has an unfair advantage in that its wayleaves and rights were
granted years ago under state ownership. Its infrastructure already
exusts,paid fr by te taxpayers of years ago.
> I don't accept that other people should subsidise broadband for people
> that want 'faster' services.
Thats not the primary issue: the more problematic issue is whether other
people should subsidise broadband at all, for people in remote places
where few subscribers exist. It costs the same more or less to lay one
mile of twisted pair or one mile of terabit optical fibre.
You have the situation where the subscriber wants to rent bandwidth, but
the income stream is totally separate from the cost stream, which is all
about capital investment.
to be fair, a connection SHOULD cost you about 7 grand, and then the
rest would be ree, apart from support calls charged at £100 an hour.
Your connection charges are essentially interest on the 7 grand that BT
has loaned you in order to have access to the cable.and insurance
against teh support call you will one day make.
This is a commercial, non essential service
I think its rapidly beciming an essential service. I would not be able
to live as I do withot it.
Any more than if I did not have access to a road.
> at the end of the day. I hear plenty of small home businesses moan but
> when you ask them to give away their stuff at a loss, or require a 200
> year return on it they tend to shut up.
>
Thats not the situation. BT can borrow money against future earnings and
finance expansion, but what the country doesn't want is them leveraging
a de-facto monopoly, and an infrastructure gifted to them at
privatization, to excessive profit.
Hence the local loop SHOULD be separated from everything else, like
Network rail is, and run as a not for profit regulated but otherwise
commercial business. With whatever subsidies the (local) taxpayers deem
appropriate.
>
>
naza
> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
much like virgin media's cable rollout.
George Weston
"naza" <naz...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:26f0f2c4-acc8-420d...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Agreed.
Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom /
BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the
government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about with
the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day, the tax
position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently starving the
company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long waiting lists for
service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and exchange equipment.
Also, when it was a government department, it wasn't allowed to borrow money
on the outside market, which is an essential requirement for a large plc.
I remember some farcical situations when I was an exchange equipment
planner.
We would plan for equipping exchanges depending on the current sales
forecast.
However, if the proposed equipment cost more than the current budget, we had
to adjust the sales forecast downwards to meet it, resulting in "planned
waiting lists"!
This is the equivalent of driving at 40mph in a 30mph area and then
adjusting your speedometer so that it reads 30. Everything's all right then,
folks!
I now work for our local county council (nothing to do with IT or telecoms,
thank goodness), where similar budget restrictions apply. If the cash isn't
available for a particular job, and it doesn't appear on the "priority
list", then it doesn't get done - full stop! The nasty politics bit comes in
when deciding the priority list.
Regulate BT by all means but don't let it fall back into the hands of
government - national or local - or we'll be back in the bad old days.
George
The Natural Philosopher
Actually that is precisely because virgin ARE a private company. They
will shamelessly and necessarily cherry-pick.
I doubt this village would HAVE broadband if it were not for OFCOM.
BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow �60bn to roll out fibre
across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
The Natural Philosopher
orgnazation. Like Railtrack,which failed dismally as a profit making
concern.
George Weston
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:121639360...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
and was replaced by Network Rail...
"There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a
public-sector or a private-sector entity. Although officially a private
sector organisation, the fact that its debts are underwritten by the
government, and it is funded by the government, has led to it being
described as being 'nationalisation in all but name'. It is also claimed
that the government is keen for Network Rail not to be classified as a
public sector organisation, as this would mean that the company's enormous
debts (over �20 billion) would be counted as public expenditure
liabilities".
Safe from insolvency maybe but hardly a recipe for innovation, expansion,
modernisation and success?
George
The Natural Philosopher
In that sense OfCOM means that BT is also nationalized.
Intead of being subsidised, its profits are negotiated..so it can
exploit its monopoly only just so far.
In the end it makes little difference. The network rail/railtrack issue
is essentially on of accounting as you say, but the arms length
operation does allow it more flexibility than e.g. the NHS.
>
> George
>
>
>
naza
> will shamelessly and necessarily cherry-pick.
Yes, but when the Cable network was created it was created for maximum
profit so they installed mostly in cities. BT has already got a
network which goes to nearly everywhere, but BT are expected by most
people, if they make changes do it nationally, as they are doing with
21CN, because their copper network already reaches there. With BT is
about upgrading, and as such not extending network reach.
> I doubt this village would HAVE broadband if it were not for OFCOM.
Ofcom have done nothing to force BT to provide everyone with a
Broadband connection, BT only have to provide everyone who wants a
phone line, to install one at a fixed rate.
> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
Well regulation is the fault of the public. The problem as said before
is, if a company has large profits people start complaining, that they
are charging to much or something else, a pretty complicated issue to
sort out really.
George Weston
And Ofcom (formerly Oftel) seems to only find the need to regulate when (a)
it's ordered to by the government or (b) when something is plainly wrong,
such as when ISPs weren't giving out MACs when asked. They now have to.
I can remember when BT was privatised and Oftel regulated much more
vigorously back then, preventing BT's prices from rising above a certain
formula, giving "other licensed operators" (e.g. Mercury - remember them?)
an easy ride in providing competing services, and actually preventing BT
from setting up cable networks except in very small areas.
The latter has resulted in the vast majority of cable companies being
swallowed up by NTL (now re-branded as Virgin), thus creating their own
monopoly. Virgin also do not have to cable areas that they don't want to,
which now means that unless your town or city is already cabled, it won't
be, as they are paying so much in debt-interest charges that they can't or
won't afford to extend their network any further - full stop.
George
alexd
> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
How about gov.uk lending the money to a completely independent version of
OpenReach to deploy fibre everywhere? I'd be happy to see my taxes spent
on that. Certainly better than pissing it up the wall on the Millenium
Dome, Olympics, et al.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
19:04:44 up 6 days, 21:39, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.07
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:03:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
>> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
>> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
>> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
>> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
>> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
>
> How about gov.uk lending the money to a completely independent version of
> OpenReach to deploy fibre everywhere? I'd be happy to see my taxes spent
> on that. Certainly better than pissing it up the wall on the Millenium
> Dome, Olympics, et al.
>
monopoly: except the government only underwrites the loan. Not makes it.
The difference between regulating a fior profit company like BT and
making it a not for profit, is fairly marginal. In the for profit case
you pay a little more for the line to keep the ehareholders happy, but
apply a profitdectomy via OfCom to limit it. If you make it not for
profit, there re no shareholders as such - its all done with bonds and
loans - and the price of the service is probably as low as it can be got.
Neither is particularly satisfactory.
Klunk
just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice, but
not essential. In a few years time I will place a bet that it will be
considered to be a bit of a double edged sword. it will probably be
blamed for a generation of tele-comuting fatsos, obese, unwell and dieing
young all because they sat at home in front of a screen for the best part
of their lives.
If BT want to raise money it's about time they cut their staffing costs.
When I was there I lost count of the people they were paying to do
nothing. On top of that I still believe that *most* of the 'engineers' (a
word I use in the very loosest sense of the word) are under worked and
over paid. If they trimmed their wages back to about 14-16k and fired the
hundreds of people who are basically out to grass, they could plough some
money back into the network year on year.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
> I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I
> just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice, but
> not essential.
It is for me.
I can transefr large drawinfs (megabytes) to where they are needed..and
manage most things i need to manage online, and even do shopping.
It basically replaces an awful lot of physical transport, which is
becoming increasingly expensive.
It is MORE relevant in rural areas. We are very lucky in that we have a
petrol station village shop and post office thriving here, but anything
else is a 20 mile round trip shopping wise.
That is no longer a trip you don't think twice about.
In a few years time I will place a bet that it will be
> considered to be a bit of a double edged sword. it will probably be
> blamed for a generation of tele-comuting fatsos, obese, unwell and dieing
> young all because they sat at home in front of a screen for the best part
> of their lives.
>
A against a generation of car commutig fastos obese unwell and dying
young because they sat in traffic jams twice a day in order to get to
work where they sat in front of a screen for the best part of their
lives, before driving home and sitting in friont of another sort of
screen, for the rest?
> If BT want to raise money it's about time they cut their staffing costs.
> When I was there I lost count of the people they were paying to do
> nothing. On top of that I still believe that *most* of the 'engineers' (a
> word I use in the very loosest sense of the word) are under worked and
> over paid. If they trimmed their wages back to about 14-16k and fired the
> hundreds of people who are basically out to grass, they could plough some
> money back into the network year on year.
>
Oh, true..its a pretty crap organisation, but then most big
organisations are.Its very hard to sack people you know.
Or go up against a powerful union.
Ivor Jones
Klunk <bill....@microsoft.com> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I
: just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice,
: but not essential.
It's essential if you work from home. It's essential if you want to use
VoIP telephony. I could probably think of a few more things.
Ivor
George Weston
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:12164079...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis.
Owned by its employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and no
nasty, money-demanding shareholders.
George
Graham J
"Ivor Jones" <iv...@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6eceq6F...@mid.individual.net...
Historically transport was seen as the driver of industrial development and
a thriving economy. Traditionally transport has been promoted by
governments. With increasing costs, and the fact that it is almost totally
dependent on fossil fuels, transport is rapidly becoming an unaffordable
luxury. Businesses will have to develop ways of operating that will not
depend on transport.
Increasingly, the internet will become the key to maintaining business, and
broadband will be a vital component. It is therefore not unreasonable to
suppose that governments should promote broadband, and that the population
as a whole should expect broadband to be universally available on a par with
roads, water, electricity and the telephone. The difference is that tax
from motorists more than pays for the roads, see:
http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-4.htm which suggests that
the tax income is £35bn and the spend on roads is only £7bn annually. (The
transport watch website has some interesting and highly contentious ideas!)
So the solution to the universal provision of broadband will be to tax it
!!!
--
Graham J
Ivor Jones
George Weston <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
[snip]
: The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis.
: Owned by its employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and
: no nasty, money-demanding shareholders.
:
: George
Indeed, seconded.
Ivor
The Natural Philosopher
yoiur touter working..and a annualk MOB inspection 'hmm., your
microfilter is down to only 0.1db above optimal sir, I could fail that.."
Frankly, I could probably give up the car(s) more easily than broadband,
these days.
Klunk
writing:
> In news:6echfbF...@mid.individual.net, George Weston
I'm struggling to recall the facts, but the ethics of John Lewis have
been called into question AFAIR. Were there not some issues over imported
bottled water from a region where locals were had no fresh water to drink
themeselves? And something to do with Aberdeen Angus beef which
materialised to be half Aberdeen Angus. I *think* there were some others
too - it was referred to collectively as 'the other John Lewis list'.
As for Broadband being the next part of the industrial revolution, well,
there may be some truth in that. But like Graham J says the only interest
of local or central government will be to tax it. I tip my hat to Graham
for pointing it out.
Before we jump up and down about the need to move big files quickly it
may be a good idea to do the 'why' question. As far as I can tell the
home computer is just a box that allows us to do lots of things quickly
that we never really needed to do in the first place. At best it is a
useful communication device and sophisticated toy. Yes, it can do
spreadsheets and presentations - but are they really of that much
relevance?
Having sat through many appalling BT computer based training packages it
struck me that you could get the same message across in a couple of
minutes far more effectively than 2 hours of crappy, dull powerpoint junk
that was instantly forgettable.
PC's and Broadband are useful, but not essential in any way.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
Klunk
empty day by writing:
> Graham J wrote:
In fairness, I have felt the same at points in my life. It was only when
I got back out into the world in my free time that I realised just what a
waste of life a PC and broadband was.
That said, I still maintain a number of home PC's like any other anorak
and even have a bloody link balancer to bridge my DSL and Cable service
in either one fails. It makes me a total hypocrite!
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
My wife is occasionally a graphic artists: She prepares material for
printing. You probably do not know how thatused to be done..we would
make up[ bits of text, probably dne on a dasiy wheel printer, or befre
that a hotr metal type setter, and make up half tomes from photgraphs
and physically stuff them in the plates..later on you would simply take
a photograph on a £20,000 camera that would be enlarged and put straight
through a mask to etch litho plates.
Any mistakes were costly, as it was almost impossible to edit anything.
You went back and redid EVERYTHING.
Now its a simple WYSIWYG layup in Quark or equivalent, followed by an
upload or an email of a few megabytes of data to the printer. And
straight onto a laser printer for smnaller runs, or a computer driven
litho printer for real quality.
Now my wife gave up work because the cost of the commute to a large firm
in London, barely was covered by the net disposable salaray she had
after tax etc. She wanted to continue from home, but they didn't want that.
This does not detract frm te pointhowever,which is that this particular
industry could not function without computers at all thee days..the
skills and so on to do it without no longer exist. Due to the size of
the files, unless you use a high speed network, you have to physically
dump them onto some media and take it to the target computers.
Now take my background, which is engineering. I used to sit at a drawing
board for days on end, doing drawings: in fact most of my life was not
spent designing stuff, just updating drawings. The scales fell from my
eyes in 1983, when I visited a computer show and saw an HP plotter
drawing a diagram in 5 minutes that would have taken me 5 days to
draw..OK I knew there was software and work to get to that point, but
the writing was on the wall fr me. computers had finally arrived. Thst
hen I transferred careers into understanding how to make them work, and
finally how to network them.
These days I do work on a part time and free basis for a company..that
is 60 miles away. How nice to sit here and do drawings, and parts lists,
and upload them straight to their machines for CNC production. Heck I
can even mount the file servers disks her on my machines..and maintain
the router and the server..
The whole point is that a home PC that does surfing is not what
computers are all about in the world of industry: they are indispensable
tools for industry, and what broadband has done, is give us the sort of
network performance we had withing a wired company 10 years ago, at the
sort of cost we can virtually ignore.
That means that there is no need from a computer point of view to
cluster people in the same buildings: we can run WANS almost as
effectively as LANS.
My wife's experience is more than ever relevant today. with the costs of
running cars/trains spiralling ever upwards, the cost benefit of
telecommuting are tipping strongly towards telecommuting, even if there
are efficiency losses in other aspects.
Likewise, these days I almost never go into a town to shop 'on spec'.
Arguably we don't have to do it at all, more or less. Forward planning
of a couple of days means that just about everything we need can be
bought online. mY wife even buys clothes online, and if they don't fit,
or she doesn't like them, sends them back.
We are ten miles from any town, and 20 miles plus from a big one. Unless
we can amortize that cost of tranaport over a lot of purchases, its not
worth going in at all.
At £3.50 a gallon, and probably not much more than 30 mpg doing that
run, thats around 11-12p a mile just on fuel, and you can add a bit to
that to cover brake and tyre replacement: say an opportunity cost of 15p
a mile... that means its at least £3 to do teh trip to Tescos or
Waitrose. Who only charge a fiver to do online shopping delivery. Couple
that to the lack of spend on impulse items, and it represents a net
saving to use the internet to even buy the cornflakes..and the time
spent filling a virtual shopping basket is no more than that spent
filling a real one.
To put it bluntly, for us, the broadband (probably with phone lines etc,
not much more than £600 a year) is more important than the cars..which
cost more than that to tax and insure and service, before they can be
used at all..
Now it also happens that what we use the net for now, is adequately
catered for by ADSL max. Just. I'd prefer an symmetrical connection, but
448k upload is adequate. 3Mbps download is actually more than I need.
BUT files keep getting bigger..I do run into problems downloading
300Mbyte backup files off remote servers. With 400gB disks..ouch. Let's
hope it never fills up..
So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if cheaper
an e.g. burning a DVD.
The Natural Philosopher
So what, in fact, IS your work?
I know lots of people who dont use teh net at all..people like lorry
drivers,plumbers, and the like, but a lot more use it EXTENSIVELY.
naza
> an e.g. burning a DVD.
Even if they did install fibre, IT WOULD NOT BE Cheap, BT have already
warned this on the wholesale level.
The Natural Philosopher
the fibre is cheap enough. Its the laying of it..and the kit at each end..
PeterC
And Waitrose (same group) - so civilised compared with Tescrot et al. One
can speak to human beings who are interested and helpful.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.
PeterC
Is BT doing the costing on the basis of digging trenches? Is BT 'warning'
about wholesale price just to ensure future profits and basing this price
on trenches? Given the size of fibre, there are other ways that are already
being used in other countries: sewers, national grid (no problem with
interference from power lines - and vandals get fried) etc.
tony sayer
>not much more than £600 a year) is more important than the cars..which
>cost more than that to tax and insure and service, before they can be
>used at all..
>
>Now it also happens that what we use the net for now, is adequately
>catered for by ADSL max. Just. I'd prefer an symmetrical connection, but
>448k upload is adequate. 3Mbps download is actually more than I need.
>
>BUT files keep getting bigger..I do run into problems downloading
>300Mbyte backup files off remote servers. With 400gB disks..ouch. Let's
>hope it never fills up..
>
>
>So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if cheaper
>an e.g. burning a DVD.
>
Don't they run fibre near to where you live NP?..
One of those areas very suitable for radio LAN's and WAN's;)..
--
Tony Sayer
Peter Thomas
<giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:30:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> naza wrote:
>>>> So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if cheaper
>>>> an e.g. burning a DVD.
>>>
>>> Even if they did install fibre, IT WOULD NOT BE Cheap, BT have already
>>> warned this on the wholesale level.
>>
>> the fibre is cheap enough. Its the laying of it..and the kit at each end..
>
>Is BT doing the costing on the basis of digging trenches? Is BT 'warning'
>about wholesale price just to ensure future profits and basing this price
>on trenches? Given the size of fibre, there are other ways that are already
>being used in other countries: sewers, national grid (no problem with
>interference from power lines - and vandals get fried) etc.
AIUI, very little diging up of roads would be required - the ducting
is already there. BT may wish to install sub duct to make it easier to
blow in the fibres, but that is FAR cheaper than the cost of civils.
There may also be a bonus in terms of the scrap copper as they will
doubtless recover all the copper (and aluminium) cable currently run
to the cabiinet. This in turn will free up even more duct space. There
will also be a cost benefit as the fibres will be less susceptible to
water ingress (There is a chance of hydrogen ingress attenuating the
fibre, but this is a very small risk)
I suppose the greates cost likely to be incurred will be the
equiopment to be installed in the cabinets. Virgin, AIUI, has some
sort of cross-connect (Marconi?)
--
Cheers
Peter
George Weston
"PeterC" <giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14gyipk4shgql.1i072q13au9ex$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:49:18 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>> In news:6echfbF...@mid.individual.net,
>> George Weston <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> typed, for some strange,
>> unexplained reason:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>: The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis.
>>: Owned by its employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and
>>: no nasty, money-demanding shareholders.
>>:
>>: George
>>
>> Indeed, seconded.
>>
>> Ivor
>
> And Waitrose (same group) - so civilised compared with Tescrot et al. One
> can speak to human beings who are interested and helpful.
Indeed - our local Waitrose's "check-out girls" are predominantly bored
wives of businessmen, who work there to stop them going stir-crazy while
hubby is away.
Refined accents and intelligent conversation at the checkout; whatever next!
George
Klunk
writing:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:11:01 +0100, PeterC
Not so. Much of the trunk network is ducted but as to if there is
sufficient duct space for additional fibres is something else.
There is a great deal of unducted direct in ground cabling around many
housing estates throughout the UK. If you want fibre to the door, that is
going to have to be dug up and ducted. Don't overlook the fact that there
is also a great deal of overhead feeding of customers. (Although aerial
fibres exist).
As for 'subsidised by local councils' well, not long ago a great many
megastreams were put into schools in Hampshire - paid for by Council Tax
Payers. Fibre links were a no go because of the sheer cost of the
digging. Some of the bigger schools that were already ducted got it. You
don't want to know just how much money the whole thing cost, or the
ongoing costs of providing these links for schools - most of which are
totally unnecessary - DSL would have been more than sufficient.
Back to fibre. There is one ironic thing in all of it. BT fibre is
normally run in a quad. Of this blow fibre quad 2 are used, the other 2
are spare or 'dark' - just in case. In reality, if a fibre fails, the
whole section is replaced leaving a network of totally dead fibres across
the UK. Clever use of resources that - but it would be, it's BT ;-)
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
Graham J
[snip]
> Back to fibre. There is one ironic thing in all of it. BT fibre is
> normally run in a quad. Of this blow fibre quad 2 are used, the other 2
> are spare or 'dark' - just in case. In reality, if a fibre fails, the
> whole section is replaced leaving a network of totally dead fibres across
> the UK. Clever use of resources that - but it would be, it's BT ;-)
What is the usual failure mode of a fibre? If one fails, is it reasonable
to assume that the others in the quad will still work? In my limited
experience if the cause of failure is mechanical damage then the all the
fibres fail together. The only other type of failure I've seen is at the
termination, where re-terminating will clearly resolve the problem.
--
Graham J
Klunk
writing:
> [snip]
Spot on ;-) So you see, it is just redundant waste. Redundancy is fine
and dandy if it put to use - but that just does not seem to happen.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:30:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> naza wrote:
>>>> So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if cheaper
>>>> an e.g. burning a DVD.
>>> Even if they did install fibre, IT WOULD NOT BE Cheap, BT have already
>>> warned this on the wholesale level.
>> the fibre is cheap enough. Its the laying of it..and the kit at each end..
>
> Is BT doing the costing on the basis of digging trenches? Is BT 'warning'
> about wholesale price just to ensure future profits and basing this price
> on trenches? Given the size of fibre, there are other ways that are already
> being used in other countries: sewers, national grid (no problem with
> interference from power lines - and vandals get fried) etc.
Many if tey coist are assiciatd with wayleaves.BT has rights to pull
fibre thrught its conduits, or string it along its poles,sure. It
alreaay has an extensive fibre backbone. Now: What abut the last few
hundred yards.
And the kit at each end. And the upgrades to the core ATM to take the
extra traffic.
The Natural Philosopher
The fibre cost is trivial. Its the termination kit and labour, and the
laying of new.
The Natural Philosopher
No. Pretty sure the exchange is microwave fed, or microwave plus a 2
mile stretch of underground fibre.
>
> One of those areas very suitable for radio LAN's and WAN's;)..
Possibly, but its unlikely cost wise: I looked into it.
ato...@hotmail.com
>> if a fibre fails, the
> > whole section is replaced leaving a network of totally dead fibres
> > across
> > the UK. Clever use of resources that - but it would be, it's BT ;-)
I see nothing wrong with that sceneario, if a non BT contractor puts
a pneumatic drill through the street duct, or rips it out with a JCB,
then of course everyone on that fibre loses service.
No different to what would happen if they ripped out a 200 pair
street cable.
You seem to expect BT to put in multiple fibre links over
different routes.
If you lose a fibre link it is probably quicker to joint 4 fires
than 2 x 200 pair (joint each end of damaged section, not
to mention replacing the damaged duct).
You can have a large part of a city in darkness with a
carelessly used drill.
Theo Markettos
> Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom /
> BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the
> government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about
> with the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day,
> the tax position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently
> starving the company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long waiting
> lists for service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and exchange
> equipment.
My relatives in Athens applied for a second telephone line to their flat in
1981. They were put on the waiting list. The state monopoly telco OTE duly
connected it. In 1989.
Theo
naza
> megastreams were put into schools in Hampshire - paid for by Council Tax
> Payers. Fibre links were a no go because of the sheer cost of the
> digging. Some of the bigger schools that were already ducted got it. You
> don't want to know just how much money the whole thing cost, or the
> ongoing costs of providing these links for schools - most of which are
> totally unnecessary - DSL would have been more than sufficient.
A school in Birmingham was also provided a 100mbps symmetrical fibre
link, but through private firms. It was BT that done the work. They
installed a new green cab which was large, a lot larger than the
normal green box. There was a lot of digging up when they did that and
it took them a good few weeks to sort it all out. No doubt it cost a
lot to do, there was quite a lot of work just looking at it and the
size of the box.
ato...@hotmail.com
> My relatives in Athens applied for a second telephone line to their flat
> in
> 1981. They were put on the waiting list. The state monopoly telco OTE
> duly
> connected it. In 1989.
About the same timescale as getting your ISP to get Openreach
to fix your BB problems then.
ato...@hotmail.com
On 19-Jul-2008, naza <naz...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > You
> > don't want to know just how much money the whole thing cost, or the
> > ongoing costs of providing these links for schools - most of which are
> > totally unnecessary
In many cases BT already have ducts in place and are one possible
option. C&W and Telewest (now Virgin) have a lot of private
ducting, and would probably quote.
Another is lay 50mm platic pipes, cut and cover, for fibre,
leaving the pavements in a right state. 4 core fibre, although
blown fibre tubing if the budget runs to it, is a forward looking
investment.
Fibre can carry phones as well as data, with the right
multiplexer, or over separate mono-mode fibre pairs
> It was BT that done the work. They
> installed a new green cab which was large, a lot larger than the
> normal green box.
Surprising, BT usually bring the fibre from the street duct
to their rack with battery backup and terminating unit,
in the customers premises. Giving the customer G703
ST presentation. Can't see the need for a large green cab.
Depending on the quotes you can end up with a BT, C&W,
and Telewest/Virgin racks side by side, and if you do some
of your own digging, your own rack.
For BT think 3.5K plus for installing the rack and
equipment, and an arm and a leg annual rental. But
if other carriers are able to quote, you can negotiate.
Klunk
writing:
>> My relatives in Athens applied for a second telephone line to their
In defence of HoplessReach - this normally comes down to the ISP crapping
their pants that they will be charged.
I wonder what the 'law' says about qualified ex-BT people testing the
network for customers having trouble for a lower fixed price - say £49.
Perhaps then when the fault is proved into the network the customer could
charge BT for the fault being with *their* equipment and wiring ;-)
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
tony sayer
Philosopher <a@b.c> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>>> To put it bluntly, for us, the broadband (probably with phone lines etc,
>>> not much more than £600 a year) is more important than the cars..which
>>> cost more than that to tax and insure and service, before they can be
>>> used at all..
>>>
>>> Now it also happens that what we use the net for now, is adequately
>>> catered for by ADSL max. Just. I'd prefer an symmetrical connection, but
>>> 448k upload is adequate. 3Mbps download is actually more than I need.
>>>
>>> BUT files keep getting bigger..I do run into problems downloading
>>> 300Mbyte backup files off remote servers. With 400gB disks..ouch. Let's
>>> hope it never fills up..
>>>
>>>
>>> So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if cheaper
>>> an e.g. burning a DVD.
>>>
>>
>> Don't they run fibre near to where you live NP?..
>
>No. Pretty sure the exchange is microwave fed, or microwave plus a 2
>mile stretch of underground fibre.
>
them now. In fact BT are scaling back their use of microwave radio since
the advent of fibre..
>
>>
>> One of those areas very suitable for radio LAN's and WAN's;)..
>
>Possibly, but its unlikely cost wise: I looked into it.
Seen the new 5.8 Ghz equipment's?..
--
Tony Sayer
Michael R N Dolbear
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
[...]
> To put it bluntly, for us, the broadband (probably with phone lines
etc,
> not much more than £600 a year) is more important than the
cars..which
> cost more than that to tax and insure and service, before they can be
> used at all..
> Now it also happens that what we use the net for now, is adequately
> catered for by ADSL max. Just. I'd prefer an symmetrical connection,
but
> 448k upload is adequate. 3Mbps download is actually more than I need.
> BUT files keep getting bigger..I do run into problems downloading
> 300Mbyte backup files off remote servers. With 400gB disks..ouch.
Let's
> hope it never fills up..
> So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if
cheaper
> an e.g. burning a DVD.
But now that 400 GB disk is portable & only costs 80 GBP (and heading
lower) you can have a local backup and another locked in a firesafe in
a garden shed.
--
Mike D
Klunk
writing:
> In article <12164808...@proxy02.news.clara.net>, The Natural
There is a small exchange at Burghclere, right on the side of the Newbury
bypass, that is dependant on a microwave link for most of the services it
provides.
It's rather funny as during the construction of the bypass a number of
protesters camped out near it, making use of the outside toilet, and
using the microwave mast for to hold up a washing line.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
Yes..I did all the studies with ukbroadband before hey sold out to
PCW..it was about 10 grand a year fir a 2Mbps backhaul plus teh kit and
putting up towers..
It made no sense then, and it don't now!
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
> [...]
>> To put it bluntly, for us, the broadband (probably with phone lines
> etc,
> cars..which
>> cost more than that to tax and insure and service, before they can be
>
>> used at all..
>
>> Now it also happens that what we use the net for now, is adequately
>> catered for by ADSL max. Just. I'd prefer an symmetrical connection,
> but
>> 448k upload is adequate. 3Mbps download is actually more than I need.
>
>> BUT files keep getting bigger..I do run into problems downloading
>> 300Mbyte backup files off remote servers. With 400gB disks..ouch.
> Let's
>> hope it never fills up..
>
>> So a 10Mbps or 100Mbps burst capable broadband would be nice..if
> cheaper
>> an e.g. burning a DVD.
>
> But now that 400 GB disk is portable & only costs 80 GBP (and heading
> lower) you can have a local backup and another locked in a firesafe in
> a garden shed.
>
>
tony sayer
Is that still the price?..
>plus teh kit and
>putting up towers..
>
>It made no sense then, and it don't now!
--
Tony Sayer
Jim
Indeed, FTTC needs something at the curb/kerb to
terminate and concentrate the services. Existing BT
boxes are of little use, having insufficient space or
power and being too far from most of the served
premises.
The costs would be similar to those incurred by the
cable companies when they were still investing in
infrastructure, less the final drop to premises if
they can use existing copper, with all its defects.
Cablecos stopped investing a long time ago.
That begs the question - why would BT invest billions
to replicate what VirginMedia's predecessors have done
already, no doubt to the same high-density,
residential areas?
Nick
>
> Indeed, FTTC needs something at the curb/kerb to terminate and
> concentrate the services. Existing BT boxes are of little use, having
> insufficient space or power and being too far from most of the served
> premises.
>
> The costs would be similar to those incurred by the cable companies when
> they were still investing in infrastructure, less the final drop to
> premises if they can use existing copper, with all its defects. Cablecos
> stopped investing a long time ago.
>
> That begs the question - why would BT invest billions to replicate what
> VirginMedia's predecessors have done already, no doubt to the same
> high-density, residential areas?
Why have more than one Mobile Telephone network?
Are you suggesting BT should just roll over and let VirginMedia become
the only supplier of high bandwidth internet in these areas.
At the moment ADSL is good enough to compete but that won't be the case
for ever.
naza
> to replicate what VirginMedia's predecessors have done
> already, no doubt to the same high-density,
> residential areas?
Well BT is not stupid, it did try to get access to VM's network but it
failed. It makes no sense to lay more fibre in places where it already
exists, but the fibre is not available to be used by BT so it will
have to sort out its own. Secondly the Customer service relating to a
Cable connection and repairs is not as good as BT's and it will turn
into a scenario like LLU Phone providers, where faults take ages to
get repaired.
Steve Terry
news:oQD*y6...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
changed that situation?
Proving that Maggi T just happened to be in the right place at the right
time to exploit BT
It's new technology, not politics that's changed the world
Steve Terry
ato...@hotmail.com
> Proving that Maggi T just happened to be in the right place at the right
> time to exploit BT
Not to mention that the many rail routes into our cities got
the chop. So colleagues living in Station Roads with no station
now sit in gridlock, burning fuel, going nowhere fast, while
the city council debates how best to implement congestion
charges.
One train was far better than a few hundred cars gridlocked
by a minor shunt at a critical junction, and often with no
shunt at all.
Jim
> Jim wrote:
>
>>
>> Indeed, FTTC needs something at the curb/kerb to terminate and
>> concentrate the services. Existing BT boxes are of little use, having
>> insufficient space or power and being too far from most of the served
>> premises.
>>
>> The costs would be similar to those incurred by the cable companies
>> when they were still investing in infrastructure, less the final drop
>> to premises if they can use existing copper, with all its defects.
>> Cablecos stopped investing a long time ago.
>>
>> That begs the question - why would BT invest billions to replicate
>> what VirginMedia's predecessors have done already, no doubt to the
>> same high-density, residential areas?
>
> Why have more than one Mobile Telephone network?
Why do we have only one distribution company for other
utilities?
The mobile companies don't dig up streets. They use
BT et al for fixed distribution.
>
> Are you suggesting BT should just roll over and let VirginMedia become
> the only supplier of high bandwidth internet in these areas.
>
I didn't make any suggestion. I asked why they would
propose an investment that would add nothing new to
the services already available. Why pay billions to
enter a market where you can only compete on price?
> At the moment ADSL is good enough to compete but that won't be the case
> for ever.
ADSL2+ will provide higher speeds to a lot of
customers in cabled areas. Not all users are obsessed
with speed. It's obviously a strong marketing point,
but not many would pay a large premium for it. When
ADSL2 was introduced, it was mostly given away free to
existing customers.
I'm certainly in favour of competition, but most large
companies are not. BT would not be proposing this for
the benefit of consumers, unless it's window dressing
for some anti-competitive quid-pro-quo from the
regulator. One guess would be that they want greater
flexibility to provide pay TV services.
Jim
How would LLU work for VM's network? Their cabinets
aren't really big enough to hold other networks'
equipment! If access is at the cable head-end, then
that's not really loop access. Maybe VM could be
forced to lease bandwidth for other multiplexes or
data use.
Richard Tobin
Jim <j...@any.net> wrote:
>How would LLU work for VM's network? Their cabinets
>aren't really big enough to hold other networks'
>equipment! If access is at the cable head-end, then
>that's not really loop access. Maybe VM could be
>forced to lease bandwidth for other multiplexes or
>data use.
I don't think it really matters whether it's really loop access.
The point is that they have a monopoly on the infrastructure and
that should not be allowed.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <CP2dnfqDAOjSIBjV...@posted.metronet>,
> Jim <j...@any.net> wrote:
>
>> How would LLU work for VM's network? Their cabinets
>> aren't really big enough to hold other networks'
>> equipment! If access is at the cable head-end, then
>> that's not really loop access. Maybe VM could be
>> forced to lease bandwidth for other multiplexes or
>> data use.
>
> I don't think it really matters whether it's really loop access.
> The point is that they have a monopoly on the infrastructure and
> that should not be allowed.
>
methinks..and the gas pipe companies..and the water utilities. Oh dear.
Lets see..45 different pipes coming into my house and a plumber every
time I need to change suppliers..and a choice of 5 different roads all
chargeable, from my front door.
You KNOW it makes sense.
> -- Richard
>
Nick
> Nick wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, FTTC needs something at the curb/kerb to terminate and
>>> concentrate the services. Existing BT boxes are of little use,
>>> having insufficient space or power and being too far from most of the
>>> served premises.
>>>
>>> The costs would be similar to those incurred by the cable companies
>>> when they were still investing in infrastructure, less the final drop
>>> to premises if they can use existing copper, with all its defects.
>>> Cablecos stopped investing a long time ago.
>>>
>>> That begs the question - why would BT invest billions to replicate
>>> what VirginMedia's predecessors have done already, no doubt to the
>>> same high-density, residential areas?
>>
>> Why have more than one Mobile Telephone network?
>
> Why do we have only one distribution company for other utilities?
> The mobile companies don't dig up streets. They use BT et al for fixed
> distribution.
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting BT should just roll over and let VirginMedia become
>> the only supplier of high bandwidth internet in these areas.
>>
>
> I didn't make any suggestion. I asked why they would propose an
> investment that would add nothing new to the services already
> available.
That isn't true. VM may offer products using FTTC but these are very
restricted. Specifically you have to use VM as an ISP with its various
problems including throttling, congestion, censorship and sonn phorm.
> Why pay billions to enter a market where you can only
> compete on price?
>
Again this isn't true. Qos is obviously another point of competition. It
is also wrong to assume that telecoms links are like mature delivery
systems such as Gas, Electricity or Water. They are not, telecoms links
are now rapidly evolving. FTTC will only provide a certain level of service.
>> At the moment ADSL is good enough to compete but that won't be the
>> case for ever.
>
> ADSL2+ will provide higher speeds to a lot of customers in cabled
> areas. Not all users are obsessed with speed. It's obviously a strong
> marketing point, but not many would pay a large premium for it. When
> ADSL2 was introduced, it was mostly given away free to existing customers.
>
ADSL2+ is still a very limited bandwidth technology.
> I'm certainly in favour of competition, but most large companies are
> not. BT would not be proposing this for the benefit of consumers,
> unless it's window dressing for some anti-competitive quid-pro-quo from
> the regulator. One guess would be that they want greater flexibility
> to provide pay TV services.
Obviously BT will act in their own interest. It is also obvious that
they need to see a potential profit. The government needs to consider
the overall potential benefits of an improved telecoms network. In order
to get BT to move it may need to sugar the pill, this is entirely right
and proper.
R. Mark Clayton
<ato...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pw4hk.182$eg...@fe119.usenetserver.com...
>
>> Proving that Maggi T just happened to be in the right place at the right
>> time to exploit BT
Well its monopoly anyway*. OTOH they introduced competition in the comms
market to stunning effect and for mobile phones insisted on competition (via
intermediaries) from the very start resulting in faster and greated market
penetration in the UK than anywhere else in teh world expect in Sweden and
Jersey.
>
> Not to mention that the many rail routes into our cities got
> the chop.
Dr. Richard Beeching.
> So colleagues living in Station Roads with no station
> now sit in gridlock, burning fuel, going nowhere fast, while
> the city council debates how best to implement congestion
> charges.
> One train was far better than a few hundred cars gridlocked
> by a minor shunt at a critical junction, and often with no
> shunt at all.
* the USA simply abolished the AT&T monopoly in the mid 70's with similar
results.
Jim
I found an answer to my "why" questions while reading
my IET house publication yesterday. It reported, very
briefly, a speech made by the Ofcom Chief Exec. to the
Institution in April.
The speech addressed the "Next Generation Access",
defined as 20 Mbps to 100 Mbps. One of the most
widely-reported parts of the speech related to duct
access and the possibility of using other utilities
such as sewerage and electricity. The BT announcement
makes some sense as a response to this speech. This
paragraph would certainly have rung a few alarm bells,
especially the not-too-thinly veiled threat in
parenthesis:
"In France, our fellow regulator, ARCEP, has stated
its intention to use existing powers (powers which we
too have) under the European Framework to mandate
access to France Telecom’s duct network. ARCEP and FT
have cooperated on a duct survey which suggests that a
remarkably high percentage of ducts - certainly over
50 per cent - could be opened up to competitors’ access."
More of a big stick than a "sugar-pill". I can see
why they might think a billion or so a worthwhile
investment to defend their duct network, even if they
don't expect much return from new services.
Other points of interest from the speech include:
- the acknowledged need for a higher rate of return to
justify the increased risks of fibre-based services
- the possibility of "sub-loop unbundling" at the
cabinet level
- the limited customer demand for high-speed services
in markets where government subsidy has allowed roll-out
- the non-emergence of hoped-for new services in those
markets
George Weston
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ttidnVQ_bIY1HBvV...@bt.com...
...and replaced "Ma Bell" (AT&T) with lots of "Baby Bells", each with their
own local monopoly!
They did separate the local monopolies from the trunk network though - but
this meant that you had to nominate a long-distance carrier when you signed
up with your local phone company.
George
Peter Thomas
>
>Indeed, FTTC needs something at the curb/kerb to
>terminate and concentrate the services. Existing BT
>boxes are of little use, having insufficient space or
>power and being too far from most of the served
>premises.
>
>The costs would be similar to those incurred by the
>cable companies when they were still investing in
>infrastructure, less the final drop to premises if
>they can use existing copper, with all its defects.
>Cablecos stopped investing a long time ago.
The cost to BT of providuing FTTC would be far less than the costs the
cableco's incurred. BT already has duct to all its cabinets and duct
on the d side of the cabinet to the various DP's.
They would doubtless have to build additional street furniture to
enable them to terminate the fibre and to provide the
optical/electrical interface, but very little additional duct, and the
associated roadworks, would be required
>
>That begs the question - why would BT invest billions
>to replicate what VirginMedia's predecessors have done
>already, no doubt to the same high-density,
>residential areas?
For at least two reasons - to make a profit for their shareholdes and
to get something back from whatever Ofcom is called this week in terms
of a change to the USO they are presently obliged to adhere to
--
Cheers
Peter
Steve Terry
> news:pw4hk.182$eg...@fe119.usenetserver.com...
>>
>>> Proving that Maggi T just happened to be in the right place at the right
>>> time to exploit BT
>
> Well its monopoly anyway*. OTOH they introduced competition in the comms
> market to stunning effect and for mobile phones insisted on competition
> (via intermediaries) from the very start resulting in faster and greated
> market penetration in the UK than anywhere else in teh world expect in
> Sweden and Jersey.
>
>
the art
comms, often without the political claims that they needed radical
privatisation to do it
Steve Terry
Digby
wrote:
>I'm thinking even 3rd world and Mediterranean countries now have state of
>the art
>Steve Terry
>
You may be thinking that, but it's not reality.
Klunk
writing:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
I'm sure some have. If you really feel passionately about it you can also
find the money to fund your own network, or invest in BT's as a partner.
That is, as long as you don't mind when nobody wants to pay £££ for the
service.
Fast is only OK when it's cheap.
--
I collect spam + please send it to: givem...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk