Openreach still have the obligation of maintaining copper... OFCOM please man up and say to everyone plan for it's demise... so Openreach have more of an ambitious plan for FTTP and LLU ISPs the game is up don't object to copper withdrawl...
55 posts • joined 30 Jul 2008
It's essentially, "We would like you to hobble BT at all levels, not just BT Wholesale and Openreach", then whilst BT are completely screwed competitively be profitable...and still not invest anything in creating our own networks".
Noticeable, that VM and other network owners like Cityfibre and Gigaclear are signatories... FCS - who are Sky, Vodafone and Talk Talks plans only benefit those who use OR architecture for their networks.
OFCOM and UKgov have been the architects of the debacle that is UK SFBB, by being unable to look to or plan for the future... then subsequently realise that their best for the consumer orientated plans don't work for a dynamic technology based infrastructure that evolves faster than they can run a market consultation!
Still life in em yet!!!
I also rescued an old 2 intel processor one from the WEEE pile at work...
it now acts as a media server with SERVIIO holding all my kids DVD movies available for them to watch with no danger of the DVD being turned into coasters!
These workhorses still have plenty of life in them for the right application...
Re: New Zealand has done it.
Because NZ has an ideal situation and a proactive government...
CHORUS the NZ equivalent of Openreach is an absolute monopoly
Openreach, has VM as a network competitor (~50% coverage) with 20% of connections market, which VM has promised to expand to ~65-70%, so will have ~25% connections market.
20-25% of market is a significant revenue stream that would help cover a lot of the capital investment required for an equivalent project from a nationalised OR.
Re: The important question...
Not to say that you put a valid question, but the opportunity for an effective unmessy separation or state owner has past.
A clear government led initiative should have been implemented in the 90s, very early 00s. Ala S.Korea and other forward thinking countries.
But the approach taken was let the market solve the problem when in reality there were 2 markets, the low expense and the high expense infrastructure. The market was never going to solve an issue with that kind of problem...
Re: The important question...
What control does UKgov have over National Grid? It's a PLC, with OFGEM as a regulator...
So no different from status quo with BT.
Netwreck Rail, i agree, state owned company LTD by guarantee... but not really a flagship example of state control...
Natural monopoly? National Grid yes, Openreach no more, for the market segment where VM is not present, yes. So based on VM assertions 30-35% of the country will have BTOR as a monopoly.
NZ is bad example... Chorus has effectively zero competition and a government who is fully engaged an has a real infrastructure plan for fast broadband.
VM provides competition to ~50% of the population which according to VM plans will rise to 65-70%... ie. all the best bits of the market... so not really a like for like situation.
Re: Still waiting in our village
Unfortunately, it wasn't the deal... the deal BDUK came up with was for the next affordable ~25%, leaving anywhere between 5-10% with no improvement... politicians then casually substituted the next ~25% for "rural" in all their soundbites and made people like yourself think that it would be a project directed specifically at rural areas. Despite corrections from BDUK, pokliticians carried on with the rural theme and getting the percentages wrong creating even more disappointment...
A zero cost to government promise... by 2020 BTs ~10Mbps to final 5% promise will be in place... which reading between the lines means that UKgov has decided that a forced demerger of Openreach is not on the cards... otherwise it wouldn't happen due to BT putting everything on hold with the whole thing in court for X years and very little at all happening.
Re: Do it!
But Openreach doesn't have a monopoly, it has Significant Market Power).
Other utilities operate complete monopolies, in that there are no competing networks in the areas they operate. So unlike NATGRID or other utlity networks there is no guaranteed revenue.
BTOR does have and VM has stated that it will grow it's network to 2/3rds of the country (very likely the most profitable bits), which means that BTOR will have no monopoly in 2/3rds of the most competive/profitable areas... VM is be vertically integrated so has multiple revenue streams to provide investment, hived off OR won't so will need to match VM somehow to diversify revenue stream... but that would be more or less what BT group is at the moment.
Re: External Observers would agree with Vodafone
I'd agree with you on the pricing re: Spark complaining if it wasn't for one aspect in the news item.
It's the consumer groups who are complaining about it too...unfortunately the article quoted focuses on Spark, only mentions in passing the consumer groups having issue and no detail.
Re: External Observers would agree with Vodafone
There is no competition to CHORUS though...it's an absolute monopoly.
In the UK VM has 50% coverage of the most profitable bits of the market...
There also seems to be some issues with charges being higher than anywhere else as a result...
But local loop unbundling is down to the alternative supplier investing and putting their equipment in the exchange and compete. BT has no influence there at all... they have to let alt suppliers into exchanges.
The absence of real competition is down to alternative suppliers not investing in a competing infrastructure like Virgin Media. Only thing is VM is happy at the size it is because they don't have to wholesale.
Re: Virgin Media doesn't have boxes everywhere, why does BT need them?
Telephony service is USO, not BB. The telephony service they provide is perfectly good...
Of course BT could FTTP everywhere and that way it would only take ~20-25 years for roll-out to take place on the scale that people would like... instead of giving people 2/3rds an improved (not ideal, but better) in a 5 year period.
So based on the premises provided of China not recognising Taiwan as a self-determining sovereign nation which can't be invaded. The Falkland islands which Argentina has never recognised as being self-determining and under the sovereignty of the UK, can simply "not-invaded" by some relocating troops from the Argentine Mainland?
With HDD prices as they are contractors are going to be tempted.
NHS need to realise that they need to get the basics right like verification and onsite destruction.
Some contractors offer this, they have HDD shredders on lorries. They come in with the lorry your IT guys bring the HDD and tip them in a hopper. They can verify that the HDD were destroyed.
It costs a bit more, but it's peace of mind.
What caps and fups?
There hasn't been any for ages on unlimited products... they've gone for traffic management instead.
Still another 3 million homes worth of exchanges that need to be announced.
Remember, it took NTL and Telewest 15 years, £15billion and bankruptcy to get to 50% of the population that VM now serve.
It's not like ADSL where the engineers go to the exchange and perform an upgrade.
It's go to random place on map, place cabinet.
Contractors come in supply power.
Engineers back to connect everything up.
Then repeat at another random place on map.
It's an indication of this society that they don't understand the logistics required for this infrastructure build, and have this "I expect and want it now attitude".
True Brian, there is USO for telephony and the same for other utilities... in which case costs above £3.5k in the install falls to the customer to pay. Hence, the shocks some people have when they buy a house in the middle of no where with no phone and find it'll cost £18k to run 5 miles of copper.
There is no USO for broadband... how would that be implemented? Solely with BT or for all ISPs? Do you subsidise BT completely for this or force them into a loss situation? What about other companies with nationwide ducting and networks (C&W, VM and Fujitsu), do you leave them out or include them in this plan of yours?
PIA is not a regular lease... it is access to infrastructure. It is currently fit for function, i.e. BT telephony. Geo and VM are complaining about ancillary charges. e.g. when there is a blocked duct, BT want to charge for the work needed to clear it and things liek new boxes,etc.... BT don't need to clear it for their telephone system to work, they will clear it if and when they pass their own fibre through and bear the cost. But why should BT bear the cost for another company's network roll-out? This is the kind of thing VM and Geo don't want to pay for. VM has even quoted what they would like to see charged... which is less than what VM charges contractors when they accidentally damage VMs network...
Don't imagine that the telecoms are altruistic, they put their own spin on all of their annoucements and tailor the PIA requirements to fulfil their own goals, which is to improve their own margins!
Business is inherently risky, if you want to make money safely put it in a bank account...
Geo do not want to take part because it's too risky, fine but don't blame BDUK and BT and OFCOM.
The rules have been out for a long time and were quite clear, leased lines are not part of the deal because BT does not have SMP. There is loads of competition for leased lines, looks more like trying to get a cheap way into a competitive market, without taking on the debt that everyone else has to. Taking on debt for infrastructure is part and parcel of the business, good revenue streams allow you to take the rough with the smooth and survive in the business. If your revenue stream is not large enough for the game, you cannot play in that market segment (simple economics).
PIA is not supposed to be cheap, it's an alternative to creating your own network. This allows you spread your costs. If PIA is unjustly expensive, then surely building your own network is cheaper...
Theresa, don't complain about BT if BE or any other ISP is not LLU'ing your exchange, it means that it's not economical to do so... otherwise those ISPs would have done so already! And BT has nothing to do with those economics!
Not surprising with OFCOMs dithering...
Whilst the rest of Europe allowed the rest of their incumbent telecoms companies to begin domestic fibre, OFCOM dithered until 2009 until allowing BT to begin domestic fibre roll-out.
VM burdened by debt has limited capacity to increase it's footprint.
And smaller ISPs don't have the capital for larger roll-outs necessary.
So, the blame is clear OFCOM and UKgov dithering...
Gifts what gifts
Investors paid almost £20B for the network, which just happened to have this company called BT attached. And that's 80s/90s money so a hell of a lot of money... internet and broadband hadn't been invented yet, so wasn't part of the equation or kitted for.
And the only fibre monopoly was the one that VM had, up until OFCOM allowed BT to enter the domestic fibre market only a few years ago. So if VM has 50% of the country passed (more than BT), how can there possibly be a monopoly situation...
has a contracted store security guard been the person to ask about permission of this nature... the store manager giving you permission would give you an alibi as they are an officer of Apple corp.
And the bit about photograph permission is very different, to the images collected surreptitiously later on...