Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: dave.m on September 26, 2007, 06:54:54 PM
-
Something might happen in about 20 - 30 years, maybe! :no:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7013022.stm
dave
-
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were being cynical Dave.
:-X
-
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were being cynical Dave.
:-X
Me! Cynical? :no: :no:
Tut tut! Dave. What ever made you think that? 8)
dave
-
Yeah that's all very well, but with 8 meg BB my hard drive works like crazy when downloading large files... so really we need super fast drives to, or maybe some completely new type of storage technology to supersede the hard drive system.
-
Have your say on the subject at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nga/
-
Ofcom points out that no one technology will answer the needs for more bandwidth. Cable networks will also play an important role in offering high-speed net access and Virgin Media is already trialling speeds of up to 50Mbps.
That must be the reason for Virgin cutting my speed by 50% (down to 2MB) every night fo 6 hours at a time.
As mentioned in an earlier post, it called "Traffic Management" and it's nothing to do with road cameras either, just a hidden title that is also very hard to find on the Virgin site (even in the search box)
Now, I live on an estate of which is only 10 years old and they can't even supply me with what I pay for.
Their excuse, is that I use too much!
http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html)
-
hmmmm I could harp on about this - Ive done so in the past on other forums and threads and I dont really have time right now re once again assert my fears of "Two tier" broadband.
So youre lucky and youre spared the earache :D
-
So youre lucky and youre spared the earache :D
Thanks. :angel:
-
Kitz is absolutly correct, the local twisted pair customer end will suffer as it is already being stated. We will find even more divide where the high capacity great speed broadband supply will go to a few fortunate customers where least expense is having to be outlayed by BT/Openreach against maximum return, so leading to a better or more stable return to shareholders. OFCOM and Office of Fair Trading have had an easy ride with a very soft approach or slow rate of response to cumsumers failing twisted pair customer end level of appropriate maintenance, for that would cost BT/Openreach money. Or, put another way cut into the Directors and Senior managers lumpy pay bonus and share allocations.
-
>> We will find even more divide where the high capacity great speed broadband supply will go to a few fortunate customers where least expense is having to be outlayed by BT/Openreach against maximum return
Well, the flipside of this is that BT are a business. Businesses cannot make a loss on products. If a countrywide rollout would end up averaging a loss for BT, then they won't do it. Simple.
Up until the likes of TalkTalk, Sky, AOL etc, LLU providers have been enjoying a honeymoon period whereby they creamed the crop of high-revenue, low-outlay exchanges, but nobody called them for it. What incentive do BT have to behave any differently?
Fair enough, call the state of broadband in this country, but quite simply, the government are going to have to invest some cash if they don't want it to be a two-tier affair, and as for OFCOM... the words chocolate fireguard spring to mind.
2p
-
Hi Your so right !!!
BUT you can bet your life that BT have been milking Government and all other grants to set up the ADSL on the back of the ropey old copper twisted pair, but BT are the sole stakeholders in openreach and the BT board can be held responsible, and should be, where openreach fail because of the lack of technical knowledge of the vast majority of the public as to what service they should be receiving for their land line (quality &transmission) leave alone the broadband that sits on top of that line. The threshold set by OFCOM and the actions of the office of fair trading are so weak and so laid back, just pointing as an example to "up to 8 Meg" and the use of the word "unlimited" without the requirement to supply the customer with instant access to what download they have or are receiving.
-
>> where openreach fail because of the lack of technical knowledge of the vast majority of the public as to what service they should be receiving for their land line (quality &transmission) leave alone the broadband that sits on top of that line.
The problem is two-fold really :/
1) The huge investment that it would cost to provide an alternative solution, something that would probably bankrupt any company. When BT upgrades the exchanges for adsl 1, it cost many millions, but this was actually quite cheap as the relative costs basically involved installing a DSLAM in each exchange.
Rolling out FTTC would involve installing a mini dslam in every single green CAB box in the UK.
Theres something like approx 20 cabs to each of the 5500 exchanges in the UK. But it wouldnt be the cost of the dslams that would be the expensive part - it would be the digging up of roads etc (and the disruption) to lay fibre to the cabs.
BT has something like 122 million KM of copper wire (enough to go round the world 3 times) replacing this is going to be one hellish task.
When adsl was rolled out it utilised fibre that was already in place to the exchange backhauls for many exchanges.
FTTC or FTTH - well I dont see anyone being able to guarantee this to every home any time soon :/ Some countries do have faster adsl but those tend to be in denser areas where more users can soon reap the benefits of the costs, you will find that they too only do this in large towns cities.
Alternatively some countries (eg oz) a telecoms operator will roll out FTTC say for example to a new estate.. the problem there though is that the cab is restricted to that telecoms company.. therefore the users have no choice of ISP and have to go with the ISP that has invested in the cab upgrade.
2) >> what service they should be receiving from their land line.
BT are normally pretty good on this and land line (voice calls) do get priority and normally voice faults are always rectified. The problem with adsl is that no-one can ever say how adsl will perform over the copper-pair. Even those with vast amounts of technical knowledge on the subject will never be able to say for sure just how a particular line will perform, not just because of the copper itself but the fact that adsl is so susceptible to too many external influences. :(
No-one will invest in this huge cost - how far did cable get? and when was the last time that any cable co added anything else to their network. They only stick to the large towns and cities - any where else tough and they wont go near. :(
-
Mind you with the price of scrap copper being as high as it is, swapping over to fibre & dslams might be a relative bargain. ;)
-
Yes It is most concerning to see openreach staff when they pull in a new cable be it 20pair or 500 pair cut off the old cable at ground level (making it difficult for a future pulkl thro') and leaving it in the ground.
A campaign will soon start to show how negative BT is in relation to all this wastage and blocking up of the underground ducts, a very valuable asset if they are clear to receive a length of optical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
-
This is purely the result of privatisation. It is the same with the electricity suppliers and the postal service.
When government owned they were there to provide a service, now their primary objective is to make a profit for shareholders. The result is we all have access to these services thanks to their past public service role but now we can see the lack of investment comning through. It isn't at all worthwhile for BT to invest in the roll out of local fibre since no doubt ofcom, the joke that it is, would have them make it accessible to other CPs for a relatively low cost. Communications providers who use LLU are sitting pretty and will continue to do so as long as they have no need to pay the real cost of the services they provide through local networks.
It is the same in the post, royal mail is oblidged to provide a service to every address in the UK, which looses them a lot of money (as a private business - hence endless pay rise short falls and job cuts) whilst their "competitors" can again cream off the business which suites them.
Indeed think of environmentally friendly power sources, if the electricity supply was state owned I recon there would be far more installations using wind/tidal power than we have today and i doubt we would have as many powercuts when 60 mph gales take down what is physically a not highly maintained, dated and old network.
Virgin media has it easy too. Again it has no need to provide or expand its services except where it can make money from it. As the UKs sole cable operator, which consists of fibre to the street you might have thought that they would be as badly slagged off as BT for not improving high speed services.
Basically the privatisation of the state services and ever since encouraging "healthy competition" might be argued to drive down consumer prices, but more than that it makes the directors and shareholders and nice bit of cash at the cost of public service, be it quality, jobs, service coverage, investment or technological advancement.
-
... you might have thought that they would be as badly slagged off as BT for not improving high speed services.
They've been clever in that respect... by always keeping their headline speed above that of (and generally slightly cheaper per Mbps) than mass-market BT Wholesale based services.
-
I stumbled across this article today which mentions the roll out of Fibre in Japan.
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/business/worldbusiness/03broadband.html)
But while that speed is a boon for Japanese users, industry analysts and some companies question whether the push to install fiber is worth the effort, given the high cost of installation, affordable alternatives and lack of services that take advantage of the fast connections.
Indeed, the stock price of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, which has two-thirds of the fiber-to-the-home market, has sunk because of concerns about heavy investments and the deep discounts it has showered on customers. Other carriers have gotten out of the business entirely, even though it is supported by government tax breaks and other incentives.
Japan broadband is the envy of many countries and the Fibre rollout has been heavily backed by their government. The fact that despite this backing and financial aid there has been heavy financial reprocussions in their telecoms industry is worrying and sad to see.
I really cant see BT doing the same thing and investing billions and billions particulary if OFCOM are then going to force them to open it up to other companies like they have done with LLU.
so that the LLU providers can undercut yet OFCOM thenenforce such things as the Margin Squeeze Test ensures that BT keep their prices high. OFCOM really isnt doing the general public any favours and this ridiculous situation is creating a two-tier broadband system in the UK :(
-
Kitz,
You have hit a big nail with this.
OFCOM has the power to do all the right things, BUT it is principally financed by the large companies with an interest and will unfortunately it appears only bow to their wishes unless persuaded by the media.
All that have complaints, of whatever point, should ensure that a copy goes to their MP. Only when an MP's in tray starts to get blocked will something start to happen, and happen fast iot sure will!!!!
So every time someonr has a complaint about any form of telecoms related service make sure a copy of the ENTIRE file is sent to their MP.
Block their in trays is the way to a better future,
As a rider to this dont forget the Government received approx 21 Billion £ for the sell off of 3G licences and to Fibre out the nation would be a max it is stated of 14 Billion !!!!!!!!!!
Then there are the NotSpots that there always will be, so little cost would clear that up if there was a people push.
Hope you agree.