Print

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

[Starman]

BT's Digital Future manifesto might be an interesting read - http://btplc.com/UKDigitalFuture/Downloadpapers/doc1/BTR1_0006_DCR_manifesto.pdf

[Weaver]

Interesting quote from that digital future manifesto doc:
    “BT stands ready to support 5Mbps and 10Mbps with the right commercial environment;”

*Wonder how on earth they're going to do that then? (If anyone says the word ‘satellite’ I might become very grumpy.)

* I wonder what has been preventing the powers that be from doing anything around here for the best part of the ten years of stasis that have just been broken.

[Bowdon]

BT boss bemoans breakup brouhaha as MPs call for Openreach split

If MPs really think that BT's Openreach engineers are slow and sloppy when it comes to connecting Brits to its broadband network, then just wait and see what will happen if the former state monopoly's infrastructure wing is cut loose by regulators.

I thought I'd post this item in this thread to keep all the drama in one place. I'm also posting it so people can see both sides of the debate too.

[Bowdon]

I think we are in this situation because nobody really wants to invest large amounts of money in to the network with little immediate return.

It's abit like when the government nationalised the train and train tracks.

Privatisation is supposed to bring all this investment the government says. But they neglect to mention the commercial aspect of it.

Also it seems the bigger the company the more reluctant it is to take a chance.

[Black Sheep]

^^^^^^ fully agree.

[Black Sheep]

Those https://intra... appear to be on your Intranet, not Internet

So they are ..... I've copied the content below.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Dray]

But these benefits will remain even when BT no longer owns Openreach. The difference is that the income from Openreach will benefit all ISPs not just so BT can plough it into sport TV.

[Black Sheep]

What benefits ??

[Dray]

The ones listed in the adverts.

[kitz]

I think they are saying:-

The BT group has invested £20 billion into the infrastructure, of that 10.5bn went to Openreach, which would not have happened if they were split

The BT group spends £500 million pa in R&D.   R&D belongs to the BT Group, therefore if it was separate it would need its own R&D?   

Not sure

The difference is that the income from Openreach will benefit all ISPs not just so BT can plough it into sport TV.

Sport TV is nothing to do with Openreach though.   If BT want to invest in TV for their retail arm then surely thats up to them.  Even sky realises that satellite has had its day and are moving over to Sky Q.  At the end of the day its all a big fight between Sky and BT. 

[Dray]

Openreach profits form a large part of BT profits, possibly the majority.

Sky Q is still satellite.

[Weaver]

> Even sky realises that satellite has had its day and are moving over to Sky Q.

@Kitz - I just wanted to ask you what makes you think that satellite has had its day? You said “Sky themselves do” already of course.

[Black Sheep]

The ones listed in the adverts.

The benefits are the investments .......... they will go, so no .... they wouldn't still be there had the split gone through.

[Dray]

Why would they go sorry? Will BT stop investing?

[guest]

> Even sky realises that satellite has had its day and are moving over to Sky Q.

@Kitz - I just wanted to ask you what makes you think that satellite has had its day? You said “Sky themselves do” already of course.

Everything Sky has done in the last 10 years has been to minimise their reliance on satellites as they are single (well quad-ish these days) points of failure.

Your satellite goes down, hit by some tumbling piece of North Korean junk and if that's the only one you can use then your business is dead. The reality of course is that they don't depend on one satellite so total failure is unlikely - picture degredation/channel removal is likely though as everyone tries to squeeze the bandwidth through less satellite capacity... Not good anyway

Sky are quite clear about it in everything they do. Eg - there is no "fastpath" on Sky ADSL, not even with g.INP. Reason is that Sky view your BB connection as a means of showing you SkyTV video & its better to have a slower, error-free line for that. Building their fibre link from Brum<->London the other year was another - it had (at the time) more capacity than BTW had on its entire network. They didn't do that for gamers, they did it for video streaming/download on demand.

I suspect that given your location & awful BB speed this is something that's just not all that apparent to you

The streaming video on Christmas day last year exceeded 2Tbps across the Sky network. That's just video.

We never bother watching stuff on the Sky box now unless its live (keep meaning to cancel it but wife never finishes watching whats on the disk).

Reason? Simple - the Roku box (with NowTV sub) is a lot more faster than the 4 year old Sky box

Lazy and a waste of bandwidth? Probably but if we're all at home for the month we'll be heading towards 1TB usage (revk might need to rethink his new services soon).

There is quite literally always something streaming, whether its music in the kitchen, daughter watching Netflix upstairs or CCTV uploading video. I'm watching(ish) a documentary on Tesla now.