BT to scrap fixed-rate ADSL?

[Rik]

According to El Reg, BT plans to scrap fixed-rate connections, "It has announced it will bin its range of fixed speed wholesale broadband products, and offer only its "Max" service."

It's going to end in tears.

[RobMc]

Interesting. The el reg  article seemed to ramble on a bit and it was hard to understand whether it was BT Broadband dropping it's fixed rate BT Wholesale offerings or whether it was BT Wholesale that were to remove the fixed rate offerings from all ISPs. Some clarification is obviously needed as this is a very sensitive area for a lot of people. If true then I wonder if they are going to apply that to their business customers too.

Rob.

[Rik]

I agree with you, Rob, El Reg really didn't do a very good job of journalism with the report. I'm waiting for amplification from another source, but if it is BTW, then the potential for unhappy customers is huge.

[Lance]

Indeed it is. Many people can only get a stable connection on a fixed rate service. I assume if it is the end of fixed rate products, noise margins will be adjusted in order to maintain a stable connection for people on poor lines.

[Rik]

I assume that it would mean the end of the 6 - 15db range of target margins, Lance, and the margin would keep being increased until the line became stable. What would be interesting to know is, when using this approach, whether a line would give a similar performance to a fixed-rate connection for the same noise margin.

[Kheldar]

Angus Flett, BT Wholesale's director of product management, said: "I think the speed wars didn't provide value for customers...[they] don't give two hoots about speed."

Is this guy a total t0$$3r or what ?

he waffles on about content driven broadband and not speed yet to my mind most of us are totally interested in what speed we can achieve which will then perhaps shape our expectations of the content we want / need / can have without throwing the router through the monitor cos its so damn slow !

or am i missing summat being a bit non techy here ?

and why do i believe some cable areas already support around 20/24mb connections ? when mr bt can so far provide just 8, oh and thats theorectical unless you bought and live in your exchange ? 

atm my connection seems to have settled at 1.8mb - currently about halfway through my 10 day period of upgrading to max.....i was thinking that if it settles less than 2mb i would be better off going for a 2 mb fixed ?  guess this means i wont be able to soon ?

another question : whats the pro's / cons of BT removing all fix speed ? do they save money ? is it a case of 'most' people get a better than 2mb connection via Max and its only a few unfortunates like me who are around the cut off point / just under 2mb ?

oh and whats the big debate about fibre ? i assume BT sees no business benefit or at least not much of a return on its investment in a reasonable time frame if it were to invest more in infrastructure - a la fibre and the continent / south korea ?

can they really think we do not need bigger pipes as more and more content is thrown our way via a phone line ?

seems to me they should be moving with technology and not trying to stifle it ?


grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, and now i'm at the office i dont have access to my other new smilies to use here either

[Rik]

I agree with you. BT seem to have lost the plot. There's no point in being interested in content if our speeds won't allow us access to it. They regard fibre as something that the Govt should invest in, and to an extent, I agree. The returns for BT on such a massive investment do not justify it in commercial terms.

What are your line stats? You may be able to improve that connection.

[Lance]

The reason that cable connections already have 20mb (and are trailing 50mb) is because they were laid using fibre much more recently then BT laid it's copper.

What I think should be happening though is BT, whenever laying new cable, should be doing so with fibre and not copper.

[Rik]

You forgot the aluminium, Lance.

[Kheldar]

I agree with you. BT seem to have lost the plot. There's no point in being interested in content if our speeds won't allow us access to it. They regard fibre as something that the Govt should invest in, and to an extent, I agree. The returns for BT on such a massive investment do not justify it in commercial terms.

What are your line stats? You may be able to improve that connection.

will check line stuff when i have chance - supposed to be off to warrington later for 2/3 days.


so the govt refuse to invest ? and so BT do as well ? so we get left behind - by cable companies let alone the rest of europe etc.....

one wonders if foreign investment could be affected in the coming years if we have such a poor infrastructure ? in the same way it could be if our road / rail / air infrastructures etc are poor or not invested in.

is it for sure that they would not recoup any investment in a phased fibre upgrade replacing old copper lines ? what sort of figures are we talking about ?

The reason that cable connections already have 20mb (and are trailing 50mb) is because they were laid using fibre much more recently then BT laid it's copper.

What I think should be happening though is BT, whenever laying new cable, should be doing so with fibre and not copper.

yeah that makes sense of course.  just wish we never moved out of the cable area

[Rik]

is it for sure that they would not recoup any investment in a phased fibre upgrade replacing old copper lines ? what sort of figures are we talking about ?

I've seen figures that suggest the return on fibre would be significant, with less maintenance required. However, the linked piece at El Reg suggests that BT management take a short-term view on the investment. As you say, we wouldn't look at investment in roads or railways in the same way, and perhaps it's time to re-think how BT operates, perhaps returning the infrastructure to State control?

[Kheldar]

just seems to me that for the global market we need to have sufficient communications ability.

and if the good old uk is left on copper (how long has copper been the phone line technology ? no doubt before i was born !  ) then we will surely be losing out now and in the future.

as to the Govt taking it over - could they do that easily and for how much ? would they make a bigger hash of it than BT !

however without some state/govt investment and input i could see BT doing a very slow rollout and/or a rollout of fibre etc only to the most populated areas, descriminating against us local yokels down here in devon 

[RobMc]

One thought, if BT were "required" to replace it's copper/aluminium technology with fibre would it do it for all of it's network? I doubt it. Presumably fibre isn't appropriate for overhead cables? Would the return on investment ever be practical for smaller or more rural exchanges. Would the effort involved in all the necessary road works even be tolerated in urban areas? Now if the government of the time hadn't privatized telephone communications but had taken a long term view that comms was core to Britain's future, then maybe we would be in a better position now to expect better comms to the home and business.   After all, just look how the cable companies operate, they won't even go the extra few yards to hook someone new up to their network, never mind offering a universal connection to anyone who requests it.

Rob.

[Rik]

and if the good old uk is left on copper (how long has copper been the phone line technology ? no doubt before i was born !  ) then we will surely be losing out now and in the future.

Long before you were born, it goes right back to the invention of the phone. Unless you live in Milton Keynes, where we have the wonderful gift of aluminium.

as to the Govt taking it over - could they do that easily and for how much ? would they make a bigger hash of it than BT !

Well, BT used to be part of the GPO, which was a Govt department until 1968. It would be possible, the problem would come from the Govt deciding to cut back investment as a way of balancing its books. This is one of those situations which needs someone to throw money at it. A commercial company will be looking at the potential return and making its decision on that basis, it needs an investment based on the wider issues of keeping up with the rest of the world. Perhaps a one-off exercise from Govt in the form of a grant?

however without some state/govt investment and input i could see BT doing a very slow rollout and/or a rollout of fibre etc only to the most populated areas, descriminating against us local yokels down here in devon 

Undoubtedly, unless there was a new USO for BT, then the investment on commercial grounds would favour conurbations.

[Kheldar]

tbh in all honesty i simply think i'm screwed for a decent connection 

[Rik]

Welcome to the club. On my travels last year, I regularly found better connections miles from nowhere, than I can get here in Milton Keynes. It's a lottery at present which, I believe, only a USO will change.

[Tanzanite]

I think technology is getting ahead of itself, bringing out all this technology yet not getting the foundations in place for it to work properly.

[Rik]

It's always the way in this country, Eve. We seem unable to take a long-term view of anything. Even the digital switchover is being handled badly, with people not able to get all the channels in some places until after analogue has been turned off. Pure farce.

[RobMc]

Even the digital switchover is being handled badly, with people not able to get all the channels in some places until after analogue has been turned off.

I don't think it will be guaranteed that everyone will get all channels even after switchover.

However, when in 1999 Chris Smith, then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, set out the long term aim to switch off analogue transmissions, he announced the
"availability" test: before analogue transmissions can be switched off everyone who can
receive the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form must be able to
receive them in digital form (ie terrestrial, satellite or cable).

ref: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

So post switchover you should get a service no worse than you currently get, but not necessarily a better one.

Rob.

[Lance]

So post switchover you should get a service no worse than you currently get, but not necessarily a better one.

No worse means I will get the same channels. However, for this to happen I need to get a new areial (wideband?) in order to receive the regional ITV channel. Would Mr. Brown like to pay for this?

[Rik]

So post switchover you should get a service no worse than you currently get, but not necessarily a better one.

Interesting that the Govt saw fit to include satellite among their criteria. That, effectively, allows them to turn off analogue regardless of DTT availability. Thanks for the quote, Rob.

[Inactive]

Indeed Rik, that should never have been part of the equation ..there are many people that just cannot have a satellite dish, people in listed buildings for instance, many apartment dwellers etc.

[Inactive]

No worse means I will get the same channels. However, for this to happen I need to get a new areial (wideband?) in order to receive the regional ITV channel. Would Mr. Brown like to pay for this?

Not for certain Lance, Digital signals will be boosted once analogue is switched off, or so we are being told.

A wideband aerial may be required, but not absolutely, it is dependent on your location/transmitter.

[Rik]

there are many people that just cannot have a satellite dish, people in listed buildings for instance, many apartment dwellers etc.

Satellite coverage is pretty much universal, so that will allow the Govt to accept holes in the DTT coverage area, regardless of whether individuals within those holes can use satellite. Even if they can, the cost of the equipment is, at present, effectively controlled by Sky. Yet another example of GGS - Greedy Govt Syndrome.

[Rik]

Not for certain Lance, Digital signals will be boosted once analogue is switched off, or so we are being told.

Thinking back to the conversion to natural gas, can you imagine the outcry if we had been given a system that only worked at 50% "until we fully finish the conversion process..."

[AvengerUK]

o'dear...

I sure hope fixed rate remains, or thats proberbly the end of DSL for me!

---

While were on the subject of Freeview/Freesat etcetc, anyone when Channel 4 is coming to Freesat?

[Inactive]

---

While were on the subject of Freeview/Freesat etcetc, anyone when Channel 4 is coming to Freesat?

Channel 4 is available on " Freesat " , you just need a Freesat Card to watch it, or an  ex - subscription card will also work.

[DorsetBoy]

And what happens to the ISP's that do not supply broadband max?

There are plenty around that only offer fixed rate.

[Rik]

I've since seen a discussion of this piece on TB. Essentially, BT will be offering fixed-rate profiles on the Max service. Whether that provides exactly the same service I don't know.

[cavillas]

I thought the Government at the time of allowing Cable operators and LLU's should have made it compulsory for those companies to have hooked up at least 95% of households.  Then there would have been a much better opportunity for freedom of choice and competition, something that seems to have been forgotten when it was first started.  Again the Government looking at the short term benefits and not the long term needs for our nation.

[DorsetBoy]

I thought the Government at the time of allowing Cable operators and LLU's should have made it compulsory for those companies to have hooked up at least 95% of households.  Then there would have been a much better opportunity for freedom of choice and competition, something that seems to have been forgotten when it was first started.  Again the Government looking at the short term benefits and not the long term needs for our nation.

Definition of a politician........someone that looks for the shortest route to the highest possible gain..........for themselves and over the longest period possible.

[Rik]

Amen brother. 

[RobMc]

Damned if they do damned if they don't. The government doesn't have a lot to say as it's all down to big businesses. Now if the government had control over the Communication system as it used to then it would be another matter. If the government get involved now they would be told to get lost by the big businesses, If they don't get involved then they are letting down the electorate. 

No company would accept a obligation that required them to cover a percentage of the households, it would be financially crippling. The cable companies don't even seem to want to extend their coverage even where they already have a presence. My parents used to have NTL cable, they moved a couple of hundred yards to a new home and NTL won't connect them there as the cables don't go down that particular road, so what chance they would ever make cable available to villages or even larger towns. Every time that [censored] Virgin Cable advert comes on telly I just want to scream (cherry picking beeps). 

Rob

[Rik]

I know what you mean about cherry picking, Rob.

How would you attempt to solve this issue? It seems to me that, unless Govt does get involved, we will be struggling to improve speeds forever. There's insufficient incentive for BT to make the investment in fibre to the home, and NTL have long demonstrated they are not interested in a universal service.

I can only see us moving forward if the Govt were to give BT a grant to install fibre, but with a USO attached, or the infrastructure were to be brought back under Govt control, with BT becoming a service provider on that network.

[MoHux]

Unfortunately I forget ( ) where I saw it ..... but I read the other day, that a new company is being set up, to provide Broadband via the National Grid!!

I think it has been trialled before, but this appeared to plan to be on a much larger scale.

Now that's food for thought  .

Don't sell ALL your BT shares yet though.     

[DorsetBoy]

Yes you are right Mo,I saw something about that a while back.

Now that would be an interesting CS call,noisy  line sir,is your phone cable near a power line?

[RobMc]

How would you attempt to solve this issue?

I don't have an answer. The government (of the time, we know who they were) decided that Britain's infrastructure was best in the hands of private business. So we lost control of telecoms, railway, gas and electricity generation etc. etc. All for a quick buck to pay for tax cuts. Now THAT was looking in the short term. I don't see how the government could subsidise a near-monopoly private business to the sum that would be required to replace the comms infrastructure for most of the uk. It would be a brave/foolhardy government that would spend tax-payers money in such a way. The answer? Privatization of BT? No. It was sold and regrettably will stay sold, not even the most left-wing elements of what remains of the Labour party would think they would have any success with such a idea. So what is the solution. I think it will be this... "This is as good as it gets live with it." I don't like that solution but don't see any other outcome. When all is said and done the British public as a whole don't like the government spending it's money.

Rob.

[Inactive]

. I think it will be this... "This is as good as it gets live with it." I don't like that solution but don't see any other outcome.

Rob.

I agree Rob, perhaps if we stopped strutting the globe pretending to be a dominant World Leader, and started investing in our very own infrastructure that is on the verge of meltdown, things may just change.


But it aint gonna happen.