Print

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

[phi2008]

BT should be forced to sell the country's leading broadband provider because of poor performance, a report backed by 121 cross-party MPs has said.

The report, commissioned by ex-Tory chairman Grant Shapps, said BT's Openreach service had only partially extended superfast broadband despite £1.7bn of government money.

It should be sold off to increase competition, the report added.

BT said Britain had better broadband provision than most EU countries.

Openreach, a BT subsidiary, operates the main system of cables which connect homes and businesses to the internet.

Mr Shapps's report suggested that 400,000 small and medium sized companies still did not have access to superfast broadband, and more than five million people were receiving unacceptable download speeds.

He said he wanted the telecoms regulator Ofcom to force BT to sell off Openreach to open up competition.

Rest of article ...

I don't see anyone proposing anything more attractive than G.fast for future broadband connections(outside cabled areas). Shapps may say he dislikes "outdated copper'' but he has made clear the government won't touch anything like a national fibre network with a barge pole. Nobody but the government has the financial clout for a widespread fibre rollout.

EDIT:

From the linked Telegraph article -

...The research, published by Grant Shapps, the former Cabinet minister, says Britain’s network of “outdated” copper cables must be entirely replaced with a super-fast “fibre” system.

It recommends a radical overhaul of the internet market and calls for the break-up of the “monopoly” that BT holds on the cable network. ...

... The report is the first publication of the British Infrastructure Group, which Mr Shapps formed in Parliament to campaign for action on major national construction projects.

A BT spokesman said the report was “misleading and ill-judged”.

“Ofcom, the EU and others repeatedly place the UK number one for broadband and superfast broadband when compared to other large EU countries,” he said. “The idea that there would be more broadband investment if BT’s Openreach infrastructure division became independent is wrong-headed. As a smaller, weaker, standalone company, it would struggle to invest as much as it does.”

A spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the report was “misleading”, insisting that the Government’s plan for superfast broadband to cover 95 per cent of the UK by 2017 was “on track and under budget”.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12116762/Millions-with-dire-internet-service.html

[broadstairs]

Been a lot on the news this morning about this. I have made it clear that I agree that OR should be hived off from BT in the past. I'm not sure it would improve investment BUT it I believe it would hugely improve the public faith in a fair and transparent system which frankly I dont believe exists today, plus I dont see it being any worse than today. The BT response is obvious and expected.

Stuart

[WesBez7]

Whoever buys it, if that comes to fruition will have a similar corporate mind set. It's a public traded company who like quarterly earnings reports. You can't excel the network fast enough unless investment was seen as long term. Could a change in ownership do it? Possibly.

I look at the example of Virgin and they offer 100mb 200mb and now their 360 service. That is really good progression and I understand they can be selective in areas but you have to give props on progression.

What other services are available?

[WWWombat]

I'm still reading the document, trying to not burst out laughing too much.

I've issues with every section so far, where he chooses numbers that big-up the negatives as much as possible, and downgrades or ignores the positives. Balanced? Most certainly not.

I'm looking forward to the section where he links the split with improving competition, and links the existence of more competition with affording fibre to the most expensive rural areas. I'm sure some logic will appear there!

The document isn't for Ofcom though - consultation closed in October. This is pure PR for the public.

[c6em]

plus I dont see it being any worse than today. The BT response is obvious and expected.

Stuart

I reckon it would - be worse
Just like that other utility supplier - gas: once all owned by B.Gas now separated out into an infrastructure provider and the gas supplying companies.
Now if you want anything doing to the gas infrastructure on your property and you will pay - big time and if you want a new gas main/supply somewhere and you will pay the full commercial price for the job in question to put it in.

Whether or not things would be better or worse under a separated out BT/BTOR infrastructure supplier I myself am not sure either way - but one thing for certain I am sure of is that it would be a lot more expensive for the consumer.
In fact we could even get to the stage where longer/rural/remote lines were charged a higher line rental to reflect their higher maintenance costs.

[Bowdon]

I'm not a big fan of Mr 'Get Rich Quick' Grant Shapps. But he as tuned in to frustrations people have.

I think a lot of the frustrations people have is because copper isn't performing as well as it could be. Why wasn't vectoring introduced? Why isn't G.INP been fully introduced? I'm sure those 2 technologies combined would have improved speed and stability issues for a lot of people.

The system we have now is very unique in the sense of BT's origins, from being nationalised. It seems to still operate in darkness like a lot of government organisations with the "we know best and won't explain anything" attitude (BTW I'm talking specifically BT, not OR). It's not something that inspires confidence.

I am a fan of G.fast and I see it as the next natural step, which could open up other possibilities for full fibre soon after.

In an industry that should be seeking to change, and is the flag bearer of that industry, there is a number of things BT could do to improve things.

Implement vectoring and G.INP to ALL cabinets. Setup some kind of joint financing fund or group, whether that be directly to OR, or to another group setup to fund OR. BT could take the initiative before Ofcom even rules.

As much as I know some of you guys have shares in BT. I can't help but think its not the best business model for BT to use. I'm assuming these shares were setup during the change from goverment to privately run? Do other ISP's only involved in Internet business have shareholders? It just feels BT can be overly timid and secretative even when they have the answers and just need to talk more. As BT once said "It's good to talk".

It'll be interesting what impact, if any this report as. I'm not a fan of Shapps. But there is no doubt he has friends in high places to get to the positions he had in the Tory party. So someone obviously likes him. This is what makes his contribution something to keep an eye on. He's not just the average windbag MP.

[WWWombat]

I think a lot of the frustrations people have is because copper isn't performing as well as it could be. Why wasn't vectoring introduced? Why isn't G.INP been fully introduced? I'm sure those 2 technologies combined would have improved speed and stability issues for a lot of people.

He he. I think the report panders to the frustrations that people have - but I'm pretty sure it is focussed on communities that can only dream of complaining about vectoring and G.INP.

It'll be interesting what impact, if any this report as. I'm not a fan of Shapps. But there is no doubt he has friends in high places to get to the positions he had in the Tory party. So someone obviously likes him. This is what makes his contribution something to keep an eye on. He's not just the average windbag MP.

Interesting that the report hasn't just been refuted by BT, but DCMS felt the need to do so too. There's at least one Tory minister who won't be happy.

[Bowdon]

Interesting that the report hasn't just been refuted by BT, but DCMS felt the need to do so too. There's at least one Tory minister who won't be happy.

Its very odd that Shapps put his name to this. I can't imagine him going around signing up 121 MP's and nobody knew about it. I feel this report is more about whats not been said.

I just wonder what the real message behind this is.

[Chrysalis]

BT said Britain had better broadband provision than most EU countries.

Sorry BT I disagree, even Romania has better broadband provision as well as better fault fixing.

Also phi2008 BT have the spending power to fund a FTTP Rollout, yes it should not be countrywide, thats part of the problem, it seems they want to do something thats nationwide or its a no go.  The other part is BT have made a complete hash of their existing rollouts and somehow managed to spend over 4x as much as other incumbents around the world per 100m of fibre rolled out. (this is why I dont trust cost analysis from BT as they to be blunt dont know what they doing or are trying to mislead the public on costs).

This is what I think should happen.

1 - Openreach split off into new company, and given a remit by government to rollout Fibre to X amount of cities by 2020.
2 - BDUK to suspend all investment into existing FTTC and change policy that the money will instead be spent by council's rolling out their own fibre (so the taxpayer owns the assets not a private company).
3 - The fibre rolled out by councils is then leased out to private market which generates a continous income to councils.
4 - Councils have option to sell the fibre at a later date but it must be done at a profit not to cut costs for a private entity.
5 - Councils, give private companies such as openreach 6 months notice ahead of rollout, allowing the option for the private sector to do a rollout instead, if the option isnt taken, the council goes ahead.

I cannot help feel BDUK is a farce to fund rollout's for BT that own the infrastructure rolled out funded by the taxpayer.  To dig the heels in futher its technology that has a short shelf life.

g.fast may have a purpose for villages, but it shouldnt be seen in cities where FTTP rollout is so cheap.

[Chrysalis]

wwwombat I am curious, do you think its acceptable the way BT have abandoned ECI areas, in terms of improving the service by implementing up to date VDSL standards?

[NewtronStar]

The word open up competition leaves a nasty taste in my mouth where is the competition going to come from certainly not from VM SKY or TT who turn their back on rural area's with small exchanges and the only broadband provider we have is BT OpenReach.

I do hope these MPs can get ofcom to lower the prices in rural area's or an exchange that' is classed as unprofitable.

[Tacitus]

I'm not generally a fan of Openreach but this article which points to the report's author hardly inspires confidence in the solution.

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/shapps-murdoch-grovel-rumbled.html

A bit light on hard facts since it's a political blog, but he does make some good points.

[jelv]

That's a good read. This is a good point:

The confused logic brings forth gems such as “The poor service can leave customers waiting up to two hours to download an hour-long video, and have forced some businesses to close in the worst-affected parts of the country, the researchers say”. I’m struggling to figure out how a business closes for want of downloading an hour long video.

[Bowdon]

It seems to me that there are two trains of thought on the BT / OR situation.

One is that we should push for full fibre by any means necessary. BT have rejected this and instead suggest going in incremental steps, first with G.fast to the pole, and then possible fibre from the pole to the EU's property.

The second position is that BT don't want to rush forward with full fibre as it would cost too much. The only question I have with this position, and I do understand it, is why then don't they make full use of the technology currently around now, vectoring and G.INP ? Even if everyone would get the full advertised speed of the package that would be something of a step forward.

BT / OR for whatever reason don't seem to fine tune what they already have. I think a good case for OR to stay as it is could be made by BT if they focused on improving current technology. G.fast is a good thought, and I do support it, but it does seem a way of not solving cabinet issues and moving the connection point outside to the pole.

On the question of would I pay abit more money for fibre. The short answer is yes. The long answer is I wouldn't pay the silly monthly line rentals like what happens for the ethernet setups. Ethernet lines probably have less chance of going wrong than copper yet these products released by some ISP's sink before they even take off because of the massive line rental, on top of your actual subscription money. It's borderline criminal. Maybe they are using price to control demand?

I think if the extension from the pole to the EU was one lump sum+ regular fibre price then I can see quite a few people would use it.

[Black Sheep]

My own opinion is that vectoring will only massively benefit distances of under 500mts, people who won't really be that affected or notice what crosstalk has done, unless they obsessively monitor stats or are fed over D-side Ali cable.

I think vectoring will probably be deployed on worst affected Cabs only, as everything has a cost to it. That same cost would probably be better put to use in the roll-out of G.fast ??

As I always say, there are people in far better positions than us, with ALL the data to hand. Not peoples opinions, or how Fibre is being rolled out in Romania ....... no, cold, hard evidence of what is the best way forward for their 'Connecting Britain' project.
It's incredibly easy to say, "Just implement vectoring across the board" ........... the reality of doing this is immense.

This is just my opinion, and in the big scheme of things, doesn't matter a jot .........