G.Fast

[thebennyboy]

I can read, thanks. You assume that everybody would be happy paying more for their Internet if it meant a faster connection - this is ignoring the realities of the market.

The network has been maintained and upgraded, but you don't agree with this because as far as you care anything that isn't FTTP is outdated and a waste of money.

No need to be condescending, at no point have i been rude to you.

Most of BT's profits come from Openreach. FTTP would still have been affordable, it's just because FTTC is a cheaper option that it was chosen. When you have a corporation in charge of a national copper network it is SOLELY interested in it's profits which means minimal investment. They don't spend any more than they are making, BT has made some fantastic profits from owning the network for all these years and has done sweet fanny-adams to get rid of these aging, outdated copper cables.

32 years collecting line rental and still running on the same last mile of copper for all those years and you believe BT is the better option? Care to give us a break down of what Openreach spent it's profits on? It's certainly not on their network. Openreach's operating income in 2014 was £1.195 billion, where does all that money go? Back to BT Group and not into the network.

 

[Caged]

Most of BT's profits come from Openreach. FTTP would still have been affordable, it's just because FTTC is a cheaper option that it was chosen. When you have a corporation in charge of a national copper network it is SOLELY interested in it's profits which means minimal investment

That's simply not true. You can't just make up facts to bolster an opinion.

You seem slightly obsessed with the notion that the job of a company is to make money - which I have to assume means you'd assume public ownership would be a better option. And again, you can't demonstrate a public sector network operator that is providing the sort of service you expect out of one serving the UK - because it doesn't work.

32 years collecting line rental and still running on the same last mile of copper for all those years and you believe BT is the better option?

32 years where everything except the last mile of copper has been upgraded, average speeds have been increasing year on year, we rank above the only two other major EU economies in terms of access speeds, coverage is on the whole incredibly good, there are a range of products available from different providers depending on whether you require a low-cost option or you want multiple public IP addresses, IPv6 and business-grade support, and there is a coherent plan to push fibre closer to your home as technology improves. It's better than your vaporware.

 

[thebennyboy]

That's simply not true. You can't just make up facts to bolster an opinion.

Well it is...

BT have been accused of abusing their control of Openreach,[9] which generates most of BT's profits,[10] particularly by underinvesting in the UK's broadband infrastructure,[11] charging high prices and providing poor customer service.[12] The UK's telecoms regulator Ofcom is currently investigating whether to order BT to sell Openreach, and is expected to report in January 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openreach

Refer to the citations in the article if you don't trust Wikipedia. Ofcom wouldn't be investigating them if they did such a good job, part of the accusations are under-investment which are also being investigated.

Not prepared to argue this further if you're going to make any sarcastic, condescending comments within your posts.

 

[Caged]

The citation is an online news article that doesn't back up that claim at all.

It's incredibly hard to work out how profitable Openreach are because they are really the only part of BT Group that came with the privatisation of the GPO and carry a lot of the pension burden. The revenue figures aren't split out nicely so any claim as to the profit they generate as a percentage of BT Group totals is a guess. Ofcom are investigating them as part of their market review because that is literally the reason Ofcom exist. This isn't like an SEC investigation where they've been tipped off to some malpractice.

Why do you care so much about how your Internet connectivity is delivered that it's become more important than the quality of the provider using it, and the price you pay for that connection? If G.Fast at ~300Mbps is unacceptable then how many years would you be happy to stick with a 40Mbps FTTC connection until your chosen provider had gathered up enough cash for an FTTP deployment?

 

[philip2009]

BT doesn't exactly inspire confidence -

Joe Garner - "BT provides us with ready access to capital. BT’s capital allowed us to meet the rapidly rising demand for internet services by rolling out superfast broadband which is, incidentally, 20 times faster than in 2005 and half the price. Our fibre roll-out might look like an obvious investment today, but it didn’t in 2009. Who other than BT would have had the courage to invest £2.5bn in superfast broadband when no one else was interested?"

AT&T, Telus, Bell Canada, Belgacom, and Swisscom have Fiber to the node/DSL deployments roughly similar to British Telecom. Japan, Korea and now China have generally better broadband networks. China passed 80M homes with fiber to the premises last year alone. BT's network build is comparable to several peers and ahead of Germany, but far from unique.

BT's capex the last four years has been 87-94% of their depreciation, net dis-investment. It's been 13-14% of revenue, lower than France Telecom. In the chart below, BT is in pounds and FT in euros. FT, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are regularly at 15% and higher. BT's capex overall is at best in-line, not superior.

http://fastnet.news/index.php/97-fnn/277-england-tops-in-euro-medium-fast-broadband

 

[wildest_jjk]

I think we are going around in circles here but what I will add is this:

Openreach actually own the access side of the network. The network itself is actually still owned by BT. So investments etc still have to be made by them. Splitting off Openreach from BT will not be as easy as some people here seem to think it will be.

When I say access I do mean pretty much the copper/fibre infrastructure from exchanges etc. Who do you think owns, operates, maintains, invests the network beyond that?

On another side note regarding investment within certain areas. Virgin is a great example of this. For example from memory if you live in certain parts of Scotland, the Isles etc. Virgin Media will be nowhere to be seen. In fact Virgin media mostly focus their efforts in areas that have a large population. This means they can get a much bigger footprint, leaving Openreach and BT to reach everyone else they have left...

 

[MissChief]

I think we are going around in circles here but what I will add is this:

Openreach actually own the access side of the network. The network itself is actually still owned by BT. So investments etc still have to be made by them. Splitting off Openreach from BT will not be as easy as some people here seem to think it will be.

When I say access I do mean pretty much the copper/fibre infrastructure from exchanges etc. Who do you think owns, operates, maintains, invests the network beyond that?

On another side note regarding investment within certain areas. Virgin is a great example of this. For example from memory if you live in certain parts of Scotland, the Isles etc. Virgin Media will be nowhere to be seen. In fact Virgin media mostly focus their efforts in areas that have a large population. This means they can get a much bigger footprint, leaving Openreach and BT to reach everyone else they have left...

If you live in Scotland anywhere other than the central belt and some of the major towns/cities then Virgin is nowhere to be seen. Geographically, most of Scotland can't get Virgin and there are still a massive number of small exchanges where your only option for broadband is a BT Wholesale reseller or BT themselves.

Also, with regard to the Network beyond the exchanges most large ISP's have their own network that they have full control over. Sky, Plusnet (despite being owned by BT) and Talk Talk all do.

Technically there's nothing stopping anyone from creating their own nationwide network to the home but no one will. There's a reason NTL/Telewest/VM were running at a loss for most of their time in business and have only recently started turning a profit. That ****'s expensive.

The majority of the copper network was installed and paid for by the taxpayer when They were the GPO and even when BT was created it was still government owned. For a national network, paid for by the people to be in a private companies hands is, to me anyway, folly in the extreme. It would be like BA owning Heathrow and charging other airlines to use it. Sure BA would 'pay' for the use of the Airport too but it's wooden pounds. An accounting exercise, moving money from one column to another. And then all the profit that the airport makes is BA's to do with as they please.

 

[faceman123]

If you live in Scotland anywhere other than the central belt and some of the major towns/cities then Virgin is nowhere to be seen. Geographically, most of Scotland can't get Virgin and there are still a massive number of small exchanges where your only option for broadband is a BT Wholesale reseller or BT themselves.

Also, with regard to the Network beyond the exchanges most large ISP's have their own network that they have full control over. Sky, Plusnet (despite being owned by BT) and Talk Talk all do.

Technically there's nothing stopping anyone from creating their own nationwide network to the home but no one will. There's a reason NTL/Telewest/VM were running at a loss for most of their time in business and have only recently started turning a profit. That ****'s expensive.

The majority of the copper network was installed and paid for by the taxpayer when They were the GPO and even when BT was created it was still government owned. For a national network, paid for by the people to be in a private companies hands is, to me anyway, folly in the extreme. It would be like BA owning Heathrow and charging other airlines to use it. Sure BA would 'pay' for the use of the Airport too but it's wooden pounds. An accounting exercise, moving money from one column to another. And then all the profit that the airport makes is BA's to do with as they please.

I'm in centeral Edinburgh and will soon be getting gigler from city fibre, didn't realize until I googled ftttp Edinburgh that it was available here 1000mb down and 500 up supposedly average pings are below 10ms, bt is rubbish so is virgin, they should invest for the long haul not second tier quick fixes

 

[wildest_jjk]

If you live in Scotland anywhere other than the central belt and some of the major towns/cities then Virgin is nowhere to be seen. Geographically, most of Scotland can't get Virgin and there are still a massive number of small exchanges where your only option for broadband is a BT Wholesale reseller or BT themselves.

Also, with regard to the Network beyond the exchanges most large ISP's have their own network that they have full control over. Sky, Plusnet (despite being owned by BT) and Talk Talk all do.

Technically there's nothing stopping anyone from creating their own nationwide network to the home but no one will. There's a reason NTL/Telewest/VM were running at a loss for most of their time in business and have only recently started turning a profit. That ****'s expensive.

The majority of the copper network was installed and paid for by the taxpayer when They were the GPO and even when BT was created it was still government owned. For a national network, paid for by the people to be in a private companies hands is, to me anyway, folly in the extreme. It would be like BA owning Heathrow and charging other airlines to use it. Sure BA would 'pay' for the use of the Airport too but it's wooden pounds. An accounting exercise, moving money from one column to another. And then all the profit that the airport makes is BA's to do with as they please.

I agree with some of what you have said. The big point I disagree on is about the other providers often having their own equipment. This is just wrong.

How do these providers get their broadband/voice traffic from one exchange to another?

 

[MissChief]

I agree with some of what you have said. The big point I disagree on is about the other providers often having their own equipment. This is just wrong.

How do these providers get their broadband/voice traffic from one exchange to another?

I can only really vouch for Sky's network as it's the one I know most about. The majority of exchanges have a 'backhaul' within the exchange onto Sky's Network. I have a map but it's not for public release sadly.

 

[wildest_jjk]

I can only really vouch for Sky's network as it's the one I know most about. The majority of exchanges have a 'backhaul' within the exchange onto Sky's Network. I have a map but it's not for public release sadly.

That is the case with products such as LLU. However at some point they will go over BT's network as oppose to Openreach's.

 

[bremen1874]

That is the case with products such as LLU. However at some point they will go over BT's network as oppose to Openreach's.

Why? Where?

 

[Caged]

You can get any provider with presence in the exchanges you have LLU'd to connect your subscribers back to your network, you just need to order a cablelink from Openreach.

See: https://www.ssetelecoms.com/press-r...coverage-with-launch-of-project-edge-phase-2/