Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds  (Read 7558 times)

Weaver

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 11459
  • Retd s/w dev; A&A; 4x7km ADSL2 lines; Firebrick
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2016, 07:37:39 AM »

Agree with BlackSheep. It's up to governments to step in where necessary and buy services from BT or whoever if they want to enact social policies.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2016, 11:09:30 AM »

I'm with @weaver and @BlackSheep if Ronski had added a word. If he had said:

because how else are you going to force these companies (making billions in profit) to provide cheap decent broadband to the customers that are not economically viable?

I can understand a reluctance to offer a service at a loss, and, given the almost predatory hunt for competition that Ofcom employs, have no problem there.

However, I do have a problem that it is sometimes impossible to get "these companies" to engage even if you are willing to pay. If you want a service that is above the rock-bottom, and are willing to pay, should that be something you can force? Perhaps the USO needs an addendum for speeds above the minimum.

Quote
And lets dispense with the notion of a right to watch TV, it's a right to a decent broadband connection, not what it's used for.

This I agree with. And for that, I do actually like the reports from one of the contractors giving input to Ofcom: the series of reports on
"internet performance" (late 2014), "quality of experience" (mid 2015), or "internet quality of service" (late 2015).

Those reports happen to note a threshold of around 10Mbps.

Perhaps it is merely ironic that, while most activities on the internet suffer from creeping bloat, and demand more bandwidth to do the same thing, the improvement in codecs means that video isn't one of these things.
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2078
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2016, 03:47:58 PM »

And lets dispense with the notion of a right to watch TV, it's a right to a decent broadband connection, not what it's used for.

So why are you insisting on these decent broadband connections then? Mentioning BDUK doesn't really help your argument, as it seems like lots of taxpayer money has been spent on providing faster broadband connections, which will then be mostly used for entertainment purposes.

There's not much point in having a fast Internet connection just so that you can run a speedtester every five minutes and get a high result.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7388
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2016, 04:25:49 PM »

I see it from both sides.

If we took the attitude that every private entity should just do what they want, then half of the country would have no water, no electricity or gas, because they in uneconomical areas. 

Certain things should be deemed as a utility which gives obligations for that to be available country wide.

However I also agree that excessive focus has been put on certian parts of the country to the point it is dragging urban areas back.

I do think there should be broadband available for everyone, however I dont think it needs to be very high speeds.  What I would consider reasonable is something like a 2mbit USO which would allow people to do things like job hunting, food shopping etc. from home and should not have an obscene cost to enforce.

For higher speeds like 10-20mbit so people can watch hd content, then in unecomical areas, the local governments will have to subsidise.  It comes out of taxation, and ultimately voters decide if they support that kind of expense with their tax money.  There is also community funding which has led to some areas getting broadband that is the envy of city dwellers.

Ultimately people cannot expect everything, e.g. where I live I have crappy surroundings, poor local NHS (due to local area been overwhelmed) and other issues.  If I want to improve these then ultimately I have to move.  It is the same for someone who might live in the countryside with lovely peaceful surroundings, but if they want very fast cheap broadband, then they need to move for it.

A 2mbit USO can be done with modern wireless technologies as well.
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2078
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2016, 05:02:09 PM »

Aren't there plenty of places that don't have mains gas?
Logged

forceware

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2016, 06:33:08 PM »

We don't have gas, we do have electricity and an oil tank. My old house had gas the difference between the two in heating and cooking is negligible. There is no alternative to an internet connection.
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2078
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2016, 07:00:15 PM »

There is no alternative to an internet connection.

Isn't that not entirely true, depending on what you're using the Internet connection for?
Logged

Ronski

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4302
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2016, 07:50:07 PM »

Playing devils advocate, why should they be forced ?? They're a privatised, share-holding business ............. they should be allowed to make decisions based simply around good fiscal sense, as a duty to their investors.

What about a duty to their customers? For without customers they wouldn't have a business would they. We as customers get pretty much no say, we're just told it's a legacy system, which it is, the old copper and aluminium cables are donkeys years old and failing, they are not often replaced just patched up - I've had local engineers tell me this, they recommend replacing and they are told to patch.  If I sent a removals truck which kept breaking down whilst moving your belongings how happy would you be? Surely if BT want to carry on using metallic lines then they should be replaced with decent copper as and when required, prior to crumbling away thus causing a deteriorating service, that is less than optimal.

Quote
How's about the company that you work for Ron, begin transporting goods out of your own pockets once you reach a certain profit margin ?? In fact, their should be a USO ensuring you do.  ;)

But BT wouldn't be doing it for nothing no one said anything about free broadband, I expect lots of companies have some sections which make losses, supermarkets have loss leaders for example, I'm sure that a reasonable USO is not going to cripple BT Groups profits overall.

One of our customers runs a car transporter business, he mainly has big 9/10 car trucks, but also has a little 2 car truck, this truck actually runs at a loss. Using your logic he should get rid of it, problem is many of his customers occasionally don't have a full load to move, but have just the odd car to move or they are in a location the big trucks can't reach, if he didn't have the small truck to get the job done quickly they'd be frustrated and will potentially look elsewhere, so he'd potentially lose all their work. Basically he runs it for customer sanctification. With BT = Captive market = most of us can't look elsewhere.

In our workshop I occasionally help out customers with mechanical problems for no charge, or a small charge (much less than if we did the job), in fact we even rent them workshop space so they can work on their own vehicles. Obviously we make very little money out of this, but it helps out the smaller guy, creates good will, and when a job is too big for them, or out of their comfort zone we get the work. Now one of these customers has on occasion recovered vehicles for us free of charge, or lent us a vehicle, the other helps out in other ways, it's good old give and take, the personal touch you might say. Sometimes I'll get someone ring up just after advice, which I give freely, they will one day remember I was helpful and if they need a job doing book it in with us. I think that every business should make a reasonable profit, but if they are making vast profits (I thinking Apple) then they a clearly ripping someone off along the way, and that's not how I work.

Now where's BT's personal touch? Surely they could spread the love a bit with those billions of pounds of profit by offering a better service to all, after all it is us the customer who pays the bills?
Logged
Formerly restrained by ECI and ali,  now surfing along at 550/52  ;D

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2078
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2016, 08:33:36 PM »

The USO isn't really about a better service to all though, it would only improve the service in the places that get less than whatever the USO is set at. Offering a better service to all would be a totally different issue.
Logged

Weaver

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 11459
  • Retd s/w dev; A&A; 4x7km ADSL2 lines; Firebrick
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2016, 10:06:31 PM »

A reasonable minimum service up here going to be a real challenge for BT. Dealing with the long lines and the creaking copper is just plain hard. And the fact that the powers that be have so far committed themselves to an urban-only solution (oversimplified I know) in FTTC makes things no better for the scattered highland users, as we all appreciate. Some state aid to help BT with getting core topology improved somewhat is one possibility. A cab or two would do for my village, but there is no decent backbone pipe to the village from civilisation in Broadford, but five miles of fibre is the missing piece of the puzzle, and we aren't to be involved in or privy to any of the powerful's plans.

I think if anyone feels like leaning on some entity to push for change for whatever reason then it should be on central government, not on BT.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2016, 10:26:35 PM »

@Ronski
"Where's BT's personal touch?"

It disappeared as soon as Oftel/Ofcom mandated all the regulations and all the even-handedness that they do. No special cases. No room to set higher urban prices so as to wiggle a little budget for Broadford. No room to choose to do anything. And no room for unprofitable stuff.

In terms of the access network, BT have been stripped of pretty much any freedom.

"Surely if BT want to carry on using metallic lines then they should be replaced with decent copper as and when required, prior to crumbling away thus causing a deteriorating service, that is less than optimal."

I agree. The more BT deploy a broadband service that depends on the copper, instead of deploying something that obviates the need for copper ... the more they need to keep that copper in good condition, not merely passable. The more our USO turns away from a voice USO, and into a broadband USO with a voice service on top, then the more this is required.

This part is actually a core USO issue: the core service is changing from voice to data. The core requirement for reliability is swapping from an audible 3.4kHz analogue channel into a bitstream. The underlying metallic path needs to be secure before you can hope to start considering the bitstream as a reliable service. It isn't a huge change in perspective, but it is a change brought about by the USO.

HOWEVER

When copper needs replacing (or aluminium), I reckon BT need to be allowed to take a longer view into account, so as to decide that replacement should be done with fibre instead of a metallic path. That choice is not open to them today - partly because of the existing USO, LLU, and current subscriber equipment.

Somewhere in the shift of emphasis that a new USO would bring, I think one side is that everyone understands that copper in the ground is no longer the sacrosanct entity underpinning the competition sought by Ofcom.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7388
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2016, 09:54:42 AM »

Legacy is a very strange word to use in this case.

Usually when the term Legacy is used it indicates a past product that is no longer the current focus. and in some case can mean it is 'end of life'.  So if BT class their copper based products as Legacy then what are they doing actively selling it as their current product line, so I suggest Black Sheep to stop using the term Legacy unless that is the official BT line in which case it is bizarre.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2016, 12:08:47 PM »

So if BT class their copper based products as Legacy

I recall BT's evidence to DCMS, as a rejoinder to Sky's complaint that they were ignoring the copper network: they were keen to point out that, with widespread FTTC, they depended on the copper network still (at least the D-side), and were therefore motivated to continue investing in it.

That sounds like the opposite of "legacy", at least from the upper management perspective.
Logged

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5722
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2016, 12:58:54 PM »

Legacy is a very strange word to use in this case.

Usually when the term Legacy is used it indicates a past product that is no longer the current focus. and in some case can mean it is 'end of life'.  So if BT class their copper based products as Legacy then what are they doing actively selling it as their current product line, so I suggest Black Sheep to stop using the term Legacy unless that is the official BT line in which case it is bizarre.

OK ....... for the pedants amongst us ........... I will replace legacy with 'In-situ'. For everyone else, I'll continue to use the term 'legacy'.  ;) :)
Logged

niemand

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: BT resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2016, 01:03:26 PM »

In terms of "maxing out" a technology, BT have done that at every phase of DSL deployment. Fixed-ADSL, ADSLmax, ADSL2+ were all maxed out on day 1. FTTC is the only one that didn't ... but that soon changed.

In terms of "maxing out" a line - each of those technologies largely says otherwise. Most lines have improved at something like 5 year intervals.

I'm unclear how you can claim the fixed rate ADSL products maxed out anything. Kind the point of ADSL Max, removing the rate limits so that the line could run at as high a rate as possible.

I'll rephrase slightly. My line, alongside perhaps 50% of the country, can go basically nowhere without deeper fibre right now regardless of what is put either side of it.

Virgin Media's issues are somewhat different. In most areas they have ample bandwidth it's just capacity that's the problem. BT's issues are the opposite, capacity not a problem but a lack of bandwidth.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4