Brit lords slip 30Mbps Universal Service Obligation into UK Digital Economy Bill

An eleventh-hour amendment has been added to the UK government's Digital Economy Bill, proposing an increase of the Universal Service Obligation from 10Mbps to 30Mbps. Labour peer Lord Mendelsohn managed to slip in the increase in the Bill yesterday, which would also set upload speeds of 6Mbps per second. He said: "Everyone …

[Anonymous Coward]

market forces?

Not in the UK but I get 20Mbps DSL for just a tad over $30 a month standalone (no TV, phone, etc bundling) and it is more than enough for multiple people in the house to watch internet TV, browsing, gaming, internet phone etc. Would 30+ be great I suppose, but forcing me to pay more when 20 works fine would not make me happy. I can go with cable and get much faster speeds but I hate the local cable company and their sh1t starts at about double the price (not that much still but fsck Cox).

[psychonaut]

wishfull thinking

christ theres places near here you cant even get 1 mb. i get 220 mb ion virgin, but 5 miles away its a different story

[streaky]

Re: wishfull thinking

Hence the point of the USO..

UK taxpayer built BT's network and continues to pay them to increase service in the middle of nowhere and gets poor value for money. USO at 30mbit might be the kick up the jacksie they need to make smarter technology choices.

30mbit should be an easily achievable target for anybody that wants it. It doesn't force a minimum bandwidth if a customer only wants 10mbit but if a customer wants 30 then BT should be forced to offer it. Nothing but positives. IMHO if you really want to make it about digital economy then it should be 50 but 30 is better than nothing. We're not a huge country and most people are reasonably close to largish towns, most of the country should be on FTTH by now with the cash that has been sunk into BT.

[Steven Jones]

Re: wishfull thinking

1) The UK taxpayer did not pay for the original BT (phone) network. It was, in effect, paid for by the monopoly revenue from customers who, under state ownership, paid incredibly high prices for phone calls.

2) Nevertheless, the government still owned this network and then sold it to private investors. Notice that little point? They sold it, meaning that the the government got back the value of the assets which, incidentally, was dominated by obsolete equipment such things as Strowger exchanges. How you can sell something to private investors and then, somehow, claim it is still somehow paid for by taxpayers beats me. You clearly live in a strange world when you sell something yet still claim some sort of ownership.

3) whilst it was a (mostly) copper network - there was a significant amount of aluminium in the mix, it was not a broadband network. Any investment in broadband has been subsequent to the privatisation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: wishfull thinking

"30mbit should be an easily achievable target for anybody that wants it. "

Technically it's quite straightforward, it's the cost of doing it and the price people are willing to pay that's the problem. I regularly pay for one-off fibre installs across Scandinavia and a price of tens of thousands of euros isn't uncommon. What kind of line rental hike would you be willing to pay to fund that investment? Not many domestic customers want broadband at a cost of £3-400 a month.

[streaky]

Re: wishfull thinking

"I regularly pay for one-off fibre installs across Scandinavia and a price of tens of thousands of euros isn't uncommon"

But.. the UK isn't Scandinavian. FWIW the USO is the USO so the question, again, comes down to technology choices whilst doing that.

[redpawn]

Time Warner Pushes

300Mb service here at $100/mo. after intro price expires. My 85 and 87 year old parents were pushed into the service which I have since reduced to 50Mb, still more than they need but the next level down is not. Having 300Mb for most people is like having a 12 inch water main to the house when one only needs to have the shower, sink and toilets work simultaneously not rapidly fill Olympic swimming pools.

[inmypjs]

Stupid dick.

10Mb/s you can do with ADSL2 over up to about 3km of wire. 30Mb/s needs VDSL and not more than about 1km of wire.

So at a stroke Manedleson has decided all ADSL2 equipment in the country is scrap and due to the square law relationship between length and area covered up to 9 times more VDSL cabinets will be required.

Like I said dick - or is he getting a backhander from somewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stupid dick.

"Like I said dick - or is he getting a backhander from somewhere?"

More like the backhander he was offered he didn't take. (given what's happening elsewhere in BT Europe)

BT's have biased/promoted far too many lacklustre technical solutions that suit BT's Copper Carcass and not the UK as a whole. 30Mbps USO actually means some real pressure on BT to achieve that.

I think it will mean Pointless G.fast as a technology is dead in the water.

Seems further investment/research by BT into Copper technologies has been cut, this would cement that notion.

Blanket 30Mbps USO via G.fast / VDSL would require far too many FTTC cabinets.

At its maximum upper tier, you need up to 25 "actively powered" G.fast nodes to achieve blanket Gigabit Ultrafast broadband speeds in any tiny area 2Km2 (with an existing FTTC in the centre).

Hence why, G.fast is known as a Cul-de-Sac Technology. You have to reverse out, rip it out and install true Fibre to gain blanket ultrafast speeds over longer lines. Longer lines, >500m (by cable, 250m as crow flies) being at good cut off point, where Fibre rollout-true FTTP is cheaper (>250m is the ideal, but you have to start somewhere).

It was never ever on BT's radar to use G.fast other than for headline grabbing / cherry picking for those customer already achieving near 80Mbps. In a word, it was a selective, Pointless Copper Carcass Technology.

[Commswonk]

Re: Stupid dick.

BT's have biased/promoted far too many lacklustre technical solutions that suit BT's Copper Carcass and not the UK as a whole.

Does that not rather assume that "the UK as a whole" wants speeds rather faster than it actually does? If 30 Mb/s is adopted as a USO then although the money to provide it may come as a tax - payer funded loan, it will have to be repaid and that can only come from users which means that we will all find ourselves paying more - I suspect a lot more - for our broadband service.

Are you saying that FTTC is "lacklustre"? I would argue that a very large number of people are perfectly happy with their FTTC service - indeed some may be perfectly happy with their ADSL service, if it meets their needs; if my understanding is correct a lot of subscribers, offered an FTTC upgrade to replace ADSL, declined the offer.

While I would not dispute that 30 Mb/s is better than 10, I would argue that an enforced 30 Mb/s is going to have the effect of raising everyone's costs; if you're a business it doesn't matter; the costs get passed on to your customers one way or another, but if you are a residential customer than setting a 30 Mb/s USO is going to be ruinously expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stupid dick.

"While I would not dispute that 30 Mb/s is better than 10, I would argue that an enforced 30 Mb/s is going to have the effect of raising everyone's costs"

Commswonk, you are complete hypocrite, with that comment.

You're a retiree that sits there with a better than average, BT Infinity Product "upto" 52Mbps FTTC connection saying that other people don't deserve such a connection because of where they happen to live/it's expensive to install.

The USO is only a requestable USO. While only been requestable, it's more likely to have a fundamental change on the type of technology BT rolls out (which is needed), knowing the minimum service they should aim to be offering / that can be requested.

As said the 10Mbps USO was a Damp Squib, because no one would bother if already receiving between 5Mbps-10Mbps, to use the USO legislation, to pay to get a permanent minimum of 10Mbps, its just not enough of perceived change.

This subtle change to 30Mbps can be seen as more aimed at changing BT's rollout plans away from Copper.

It skews things in favour of true Fibre rollout for longer lines. It's designed to make it expensive for BT, if it sticks with its Copper Carcass. If BT utilises true fibre /FTTP for much of these longer lines, there are zero business rates on those newly laid lines.

Fundamentally with this amendment to a USO of 30Mbps:

I believe the Government are saying to BT:

We want unbiased technical solutions (as used by a new entrant), that don't favour what BT has in its own moldy cupboard.

We don't want any more of your Bamboozled, Obfuscated "upto" Copper FTTC rollout.

We want BT to start rolling out true Fibre. And, as a last resort; "upto" G.fast/FTTC is you have to, but only for shorter lines <250m-500m.

It means no more "sitting on hands" waiting for handouts, BT - get on with it. Achieving this in Scotland is going to be tough, and a real challenge, but a welcome one.

Having FTTP to the door doesn't mean Telecom firms can't offer basic services over those FTTP lines too, it just means there is no upper ceiling.

[AndrueC]

Re: Stupid dick.

if my understanding is correct

It is. We now have a pretty good idea of what 'the people' want and it turns out that most people do not want the fastest connection possible. A lot of people who could get up to 80/20 (by which I mean they are close enough to the cabinet to benefit from it) in fact choose lower packages. Only a minority of VM customers bother to pay for the top rate. And as you say there's still a lot of people happy with their ADSL service. As time goes on this is likely to change but the idea that 'everyone' is clamouring for ever faster speeds is simply not true. The market is showing that very clearly.

Now of course this is an evolving market and over time it's likely that the demand for speed will increase but people demanding investment would be wise to understand the market they are operating in. There probably will come a time when everyone wants 100Mb/s so it would be sensible to plan for that. It's just not wise to claim that time is now because market sales do not support it.

Now would instead be a good time to work on the have-nots and that's what this USO is trying to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stupid dick.

"30Mbps USO actually means some real pressure on BT to achieve that."

It seems unlikely, My understanding is that the government is looking for telcos to apply to 'own' the USO. Who would want to own a USO that is too onerous to make any kind of financial sense? The result would be that there would be no USO.

"Seems further investment/research by BT into Copper technologies has been cut, this would cement that notion"

G.Fast isn't a BT invention. Development is mostly run by the GOLD project - BT are part of it alongside Orange, Lucent, Ericsson, Sagemcom and some universities. Telcos don't do that same kind of singleton research they used to in the 70's, it's more efficient to team up, especially as many face exactly the same problems.

"Hence why, G.fast is known as a Cul-de-Sac Technology"

I've never heard that phrase applied to G.Fast. In Europe it's clearly a technology for copper network owning telcos to be able to compete directly with competition from HFC networks. In Asia it's being used to fill in gaps in coverage that can't be economically filled with fibre. Interestingly the two largest deployments of G.Fast are in countries with lots of FTTP - Switzerland and South Korea - the cost advantage is huge.

[Mark 65]

Re: Stupid dick.

@inmypjs: "So at a stroke Manedleson has decided all ADSL2 equipment in the country is scrap"

As he stated, his intent was to mandate something suitable for the future and not for the past. Given how long such services take to roll out you don't want to mandate something that will easily become obsolete by the time the people have access to it. 10Mb/s is pretty obsolete. Not if you're currently struggling on 1Mb/s ADSL, admittedly, but that's more of a damning statement of the status quo in 2017.

[Dan 55]

Re: Stupid dick.

It's a good idea to put pressure on BT. It'd be nice if that pressure were technically possible though.

[Andy Livingstone]

Re: Stupid dick.

Purely for the record, this article concerns Jonathan Neil Mendelsohn, Lord Mendelsohn and not some of the other Lords people are thinking of.

[inmypjs]

Re: Stupid dick.

"concerns Jonathan Neil Mendelsohn"

Sorry about my typo, but, yes I did know it wasn't the evil vampire bloke.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Stupid dick.

"So at a stroke Manedleson"

TFO says Lord Mendelsohn so a different stupid Dick (or Tom or Harry).

[Anonymous Coward]

30Mbps USO will kill most of BT's plans for Pointless G.fast

It's actually starting to look like some pressure on BT's "sitting on hands approach".

It's a important change if it happens, as it will decide much of the new BT rollout plans, G.fast tech is looking very short term, right now, if at all worth bothering with, given the zero business rates for new fibre.

Having a 30Mbps USO will kill/scale back most of BT's plans for cherry picking bamboozled, obfuscated "upto" Pointless G.fast. Not sure BT/G.fast Promoters (and there are many out there) are going to like this. I suppose the real question is how many BT subscribers will use this legislation and pay for 30Mbps installs.

The 10Mbps USO legislation as it stands is skewed very much in the favour of BT.

The whole point of a 10Mbps USO pushed by Ed Vaizey, was it "helpfully/conveniently" fitted in with BT's lacklustre G.fast technical plans, to enable headline cherry picking of sites for G.fast rollout.

Allowing "upto" G.fast to cherry pick top headline speeds i.e. "upto" 330Mbps Ultrafast Broadband to a select few very close to existing FTTC Cabinets (the same people already getting near 80Mbps), while those on much longer lines - the 10Mbps USO being achievable using existing ADSL / (or where exchanges allowed ADSL to be removed) - LR VDSL, or bonded lines.

Remember too, this is for anyone that could be bothered to request this from BT via USO legislation (and pay), i.e. going from 5Mbps to 10Mbps, are you really going to want to pay £15000 for the privilege?

Let's face it at 10Mbps, it was looking like a USO that no one would bother to take up. Damp Squib Legislation.

30Mbps sits well with the notion that any line copper/alu longer than 500m by cable (250m as the crow flies) should now be replaced with true FTTP, anything less than 500m can remain (BT's preference) "upto" G.fast, which should be able to offer 30Mbps at the outer edges on all cable qualities (copper/alu) at that distance. The true cut-off is somewhere between 250m and 500m by cable, but its a start.

But maybe given the real results of the G.fast trials, BT have just decided that going forward, it would be better to stick to one technology, i.e. FTTP for new installs, this 30Mbps change would pretty much cement that.

BT will probably still want to use their Pointless "upto" G.fast though, so this saves face, allowing it to be used on lines less than 500m by cable.

The amendment should also specify the cable type though i.e. Fibre optic on lines greater than 500m, because BT have been upgrading 0.5mm Copper to 0.9mm Copper in Wales to "just" meet 30Mbps specification, rather than "do the done thing", in the spirit of the Superfast Broadband Programme - replacing with long copper lines with FTTP.

That would then prevent BT from doing pointless (rearranging the chairs) copper upgrades to "just" meet 30Mbps specifications.

[therealmav]

Re: 30Mbps USO will kill most of BT's plans for Pointless G.fast

Are you dido Harding in disguise?

I'm on a eo line and get about 2mb at the moment. A 10mb service would be great. A 30mb service even better. But having technology choices mandated in law is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. MPs generally don't know shit about tech matters and laws take ages to change.

G. Fast works perfectly well for a large percentage of potential users as does fttc. Forcing BT to install universal fttp in the absence of customer demand is just going to put up everyone's costs to no good end

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 30Mbps USO will kill most of BT's plans for Pointless G.fast

"Having a 30Mbps USO will kill/scale back most of BT's plans for cherry picking bamboozled, obfuscated "upto" Pointless G.fast. Not sure BT/G.fast Promoters (and there are many out there) are going to like this. I suppose the real question is how many BT subscribers will use this legislation and pay for 30Mbps installs."

That doesn't make any sense. I suspect the 10Mbps USO was going to be met with LR-VDSL, not G.Fast. The distance performance of G.Fast isn't sufficient to use to reach many remote premises - as I commented above. G.Fast is a technology to allow copper owning telcos to compete with HFC networks. I think it's pretty unlikely that anyone who wouldn't get greater speeds than 30Mbps from G.Fast would be sold G.Fast so I think you're barking up the wrong tree at a strawman you invented.

I think if the USO is 30Mbps no-one will apply to take the USO on. The demand isn't there - and importantly - the higher price of a 30Mbps service versus a 10Mbps one will deter rural citizens from applying for it where they might currently be getting 1 or 2Mbps. It will exclude a whole section of the rural community on the grounds of cost - exactly the opposite of the intended benefit of better broadband to these areas.

You're too focused on the technical aspects of broadband without any consideration for the commercial realities. A few hundred quid per property for something VDSL based versus a few thousand for FTTP. Repeat across 5-10% of the whole country. In some cases a fibre or wireless service will be the only way to reach some desperately remote dwelling, but many will be in reach of LR-VDSL. How much do you think urban communities are willing to see their broadband bills increase by for your fibre dream to become a reality?

[Tom 64]

Sad, but necessary

BT are such jobsworthys that if they don't get a prod up the backside from government, they simply wont invest and keep paying shareholders and senior management all the cream.

Market forces in South Korea are pushing providers way above gigabit levels for home installations, and its not uncommon for customers to complain if they can't get more than 100Mbps.

[AndrueC]

Re: Sad, but necessary

Market forces in South Korea are pushing providers way above gigabit levels for home installations

So what? This article is about the UK and speed is just not a huge driver in the UK. Sales figures for the various packages available from ISPs makes that very clear.

If there was a huge demand for speed every VM customer would be subscribing to the top tier package. But they don't. It remains a minority interest. From time to time VM actually have to close the bottom package and bump people up for free to try and make their average speed figures better.

Same with BT - now fine not everyone is close enough to their cabinet to benefit from the up to 80/20 service but even taking that into account it's still not popular. Most people just don't want the fastest package they can get.

What they want is reliability and low cost.

[Matthew 3]

6Mbps per second?

Is broadband like gravity then? ;-)