Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tickmike]

I think I will ask my ISP on Monday for 10Mbps Symmetrical connection, I'm lucky if I get 2Mbps now.

10Mbps in 2020 will be the 'Dial up' speed 

[Weaver]

With all the modems I've tried, I can only hold up 2Mbps d/s sync for a week or so, occasionally for longer, but hardly ever on more than one line. I always get 1.75 Mbps on each line, unless something exceptional has gone wrong, DLM having been upset by some event. (For some reason, one of the the speed checkers, speedof.me, often reports a d/s figure higher than 5.25 Mbps, such as 5.48 say. I just don't know where they get this from.)

Having a stable 2 Mbps d/s would be really nice, then I would be getting 6 Mbps in total. Seeing as  the most an ADSL user can get from BT 20Cn would be 7 Mbps anyway (without turning off interleaving), then that would be pretty good for a reasonably remote spot.

[WWWombat]

Nice idea but I cannot see BT agreeing to it unless WE pay *more* money to them to fund the infrastructure changes need to supply this.

In September, BT said they would support a UK USO between 5-10Mbps

The question which remains to be answered is would the entire burden fall on Openreach (and KC) or would other providers like Virgin etc, get a look in and be forced to contribute financially as well?(and if there are any other rules, i.e. contention or minimum upload speeds as well)

The release states the following:
Aim for a new universal minimum broadband speed of 5 -10 Megabits per second (Mbps) for every home and business, subject to regulatory support


Aim means that it is possible to 'miss' for some homes and Businesses.
5 - 10 is NOT 10 so yet more possible misses.

So I think the question you posited is one of many yet to be answered, which brings us back to the original question of paying to hit the 10 Mbps target as a minimum.

While the point is well made that BT only talks about aims, I don't think it speaks to the whole story.

My understanding of a modern day USO, is that it can no longer be enforced on a single company. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the financial obligation will no longer rest on a single company ... and basic requirements for value for money may mean the fulfillment of the obligation could fall to a number of providers (yes, one could be satellite), while funding could come from an industry-wide pot.

With that in mind, I read BT's announcement differently:
- They say they will take part in an industry-wide USO scheme, rather than committing to it alone
- They quote a range of 5-10Mbps because the government, at the time, had talked of 5Mbps, while Ofcom had talked of 10. Simple hedging of bets.

Who pays? Good question.

It'll either be taxpayers (I guess it is really the top 40% who are nett contributors of tax vs benefits) or it'll be other broadband subscribers (so 95% of 82% of homes) through an implicit or explicit surcharge.

[Chrysalis]

what about the urban areas with low speeds? the gov seems to think they dont exist

[Weaver]

RevK gives his take on this
    http://www.revk.uk/2015/11/10mbs-uso.html

[AArdvark]

@WWombat
All you say is true.
I had effectively factored it into the Pay question as rightly a Private Company cannot be compelled to do this and I doubt any voluntary Industry-wide group would be happy to fund this either.
As soon as any request gets out of step with the current and/or future plans of BT or the Industry as a whole, the question asked next will be 'Who is going to fund this ?'
(Implied in the question is the obvious 'Not me' stance by the Industry as a whole.)

Hence the idea that WE will end up funding this one way or another.
(Directly through increased fees per month or indirectly via taxation in all its various forms for a large cheque made out to BT. Knowing our luck it will be both.  )

I can see the point from the perspective of BT.
The service planned & financed is 'A', the Govt asks (however forcefully) for 'B' ....... someone is going to have to pay for the difference, end of Story.

Question:
Do Virgin supply lines that are that slow ?
I thought that all the old adsl lines had been sold on to TalkTalk.
The remaining must be getting the current Virgin Service(s) which I thought well exceeded 10Meg.
That would mean that Virgin could quite reasonably query why they should be paying anything at all as they exceed the USO.
(Don't know Virgin so apologies if I am well off the mark.  )

[WWWombat]

what about the urban areas with low speeds? the gov seems to think they dont exist

BDUK seem to acknowledge it - their presentations suggest the final 5% includes 1% in urban areas, 3% in rural areas that could end up with a solution, and 1% in rural areas that are more "intractable".

[WWWombat]

RevK gives his take on this
    http://www.revk.uk/2015/11/10mbs-uso.html

It's a pretty reasonable post.

The thing about setting other requirements, that would allow/bar satellite, in interesting, but misses one whole dimension: a temporal one.

Over time, our minimum needs change in a way that doesn't happen to gas, water or electricity (although I guess both gas and electricity distribution have undergone fundamental spec changes early in their life).

Over time, the USO needs to be able to change, and we need a managed way to retire old requirements & technology. Setting a new USO can be immediate, but upgrades will take time - and leave a gap for interim solutions. In that vein, right now, something like satellite could be a temporary, interim, technology (it meets some requirements, but not all).

Managing change over time is a thing that rarely appears.

[WWWombat]

That would mean that Virgin could quite reasonably query why they should be paying anything at all as they exceed the USO.

The obvious counter is because VM don't exceed the USO in the 52% of the country they found unprofitable, so didn't cover.

The point is to take the burden of the unprofitable customers, and share it amongst the profitable ones. With a monopoly, it is easy to identify both groups. In a competitive environment, sharing is needed.

[AArdvark]

That would mean that Virgin could quite reasonably query why they should be paying anything at all as they exceed the USO.

The obvious counter is because VM don't exceed the USO in the 52% of the country they found unprofitable, so didn't cover.

The point is to take the burden of the unprofitable customers, and share it amongst the profitable ones. With a monopoly, it is easy to identify both groups. In a competitive environment, sharing is needed.

I love the argument and would be happy if it was taken up but have Virgin shown any support for the idea in any way and if so what were the provisos. ?

[WWWombat]

I love the argument and would be happy if it was taken up but have Virgin shown any support for the idea in any way and if so what were the provisos. ?

Interesting question, though the obvious answer is that VM haven't shown any interest as such - but they have said that government support for rollouts should stop, as the market can cope. An interesting statement, given that they aren't part of the market who would actually get to the "hard to reach" parts in rural area (maybe the urban ones though), so presumably they're laying some responsibility off elsewhere.

It does suggest they're at least OK with the concept of a market-funded USO solution.

Most recently, I saw that VM actually backed BT against Sky in the split/not arguments. I'm not surprised at this, as the next target, once Openreach is split, would be VM themselves. Does this mean they are happy with BT/Openreach taking a role in the USO?

More questions than answers...