BT adds broadband users, profit up 20%

[Simon]

BT Retail added 141,000 broadband subscribers, a day after rival Virgin Media announced losses of 12,000.

There were 231,000 net additions to BT's total DSL and LLU network, of which BT Retail's own share was 141,000. Including news customers on Virgin's cable network, that gave BT Retail a 59% share of new UK broadband customers, its highest yet.

However, while the ISP said its super-fast fibre broadband network now covered five million homes and businesses, the number of customers actually using it was still only 200,000 - despite trebling in the past six months.

BT said its overall revenue slid 5% to £4.8 billion, but profit was up 20% to £533 million. Despite making operational savings, CEO Ian Livingston said BT was still "investing in the future of the business".

Read more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/368947/bt-adds-broadband-users-profit-up-20

[Technical Ben]

I wonder how many of them were from the 100,000 odd new builds. 

[zappaDPJ]

Perhaps a lot of their new Internet business comes from existing phone customers who have taken their broadband service just to shut them up. They are currently conducting a relentless and aggressive marketing campaign which borders on the absurd. We are currently receiving at least two mail shots a week and countless phone calls. Last Monday alone they called three times tying to sell BT Infinity, free for 3 months. They also insist that my connection will sustain 37.5Mb/s throughput which it never has.

[Rik]

Snake oil, anyone?

[davej99]

No doubt BT are intensively marketing their broadband. Latest is £16 per month plus rent with unlimited UK calls (1000mins/150 calls). 18 month contract with four months free and free WiFi Openzone. So you can see why they are getting customers. But what is the throttling like on an unlimited BB service?  Strangely the snake oil is not working, on me anyway.

[Rik]

You're just not using it right, Dave.

[davej99]

I am told it is an excellent suppository.

[davej99]

Sorry finger problems. No connection with previous post.

[Rik]

Best removed from the bottle first, though.  

[pctech]

The ONLY thing BT has technically over the other ISPs I've observed via a couple of tracerts (from the ADSL connection at work which is BT) is that the POP that the traffic is delivered to is local, in the case here that means Bletchley whereas with IDNet, Zen and others the traffic is backhauled to London.

This is significant because it does mean that if that POP were to fail the traffic could be re-routed in theory at least whereas the independent providers have to pay for each individual connection from the BT network.

[Ted]

BT Retail added 141,000 broadband subscribers,

141,000    140,999 

[pctech]

Might have added them but how long did they stay when they realised how carp the service was.

[Ardua]

Might have added them but how long did they stay when they realised how carp the service was.

Presumably, for 18 months at least. Seriously, BT's FTTC offer is something that niche providers will have to face and compete with. With 6 months to go to FTTC, I shall watch and wait. It would though be helpful if IDNet could look at its FTTC offering re price and package as the difference is marked given that I do not play online games or download after midnight.

[Rik]

I'd be interested to know how much cross-subsidy BT is using.

[pctech]

When you own the infrastructure, you can charge any price you like to your 'preferred' customer (BT Retail) while charging the rest a fortune.

[Rik]

Though that's not the case according to Ofcom.

[Technical Ben]

Presumably, for 18 months at least. Seriously, BT's FTTC offer is something that niche providers will have to face and compete with. With 6 months to go to FTTC, I shall watch and wait. It would though be helpful if IDNet could look at its FTTC offering re price and package as the difference is marked given that I do not play online games or download after midnight.

IDnet's product may not suit you then. Remember, one of the main benefits of IDNet is a well organised but un-throttled service. If you don't need the Fibre for fast downloads, what do you need it for? Would not ASDL24+ be better? Unless you get massive increases with FTTC, even then, as an early adopter will you use that extra speed?

[pctech]

Though that's not the case according to Ofcom.

I'd be willing to lay a small bet that BT constitutes a good proportion of ofcom's licence revenue (as does Kingston Communications which is BT's counterpart in Hull)

If they stopped paying their fees, ofcom would callapse so I'd expect ofcom to turn a blind eye to a fair bit.

[Ardua]

IDnet's product may not suit you then. Remember, one of the main benefits of IDNet is a well organised but un-throttled service. If you don't need the Fibre for fast downloads, what do you need it for? Would not ASDL24+ be better? Unless you get massive increases with FTTC, even then, as an early adopter will you use that extra speed?

I will take the bait.

This was the argument people used about the horse, the train and then the aeroplane. Without doubt, within the next few years the majority of people will watch their TV on a FTTC link. When I had a 512mb connection, I couldn't envisage a need for 2Mbps and so on. I downloaded the new Lion OSX last week and it was a breeze - so whilst I may not need speed all the time it is a nice thing to have in the locker. As others have said, the BT package is appealing because of its price and content, and I am not surprised it is doing as well as it is. I am sure that Sky will soon catch up. If niche ISPs are to survive, then they must offer something similar. However, as always, it is for individuals to decide on what is best for them.

[pctech]

BT Retail will always undercut the independent ISP because they have unique access to BT products, sinple as but the service cannot hold a candle to the independent ISP.