Who is responsible for upgrading outdated, slow phone lines?

If you think Openreach have already paid off their colossal investment in FTTC as well as not having to continually invest in their network on an ongoing basis then there is absolutely no point trying to continue this discussion.

FTTC sells for £119.40 per year plus VAT. A fibre cabinet will cost around £60,000. If a 288 pair cabinet sees a 20% adoption rate then that's nearly 9 years just to pay for the cabinet costs, ignoring any ongoing maintenance and power bills.

As said above, if it made commercial sense then these areas would already have service. Breaking Openreach apart doesn't make these cost lower, like I've tried to explain several times.

If you aren't served by a next-gen provider then you have some options:

1. Fund the cabinet yourself
2. Get a leased line
3. Use a wireless ISP
4. Rant on the internet about how evil BT are

One of those is guaranteed to not improve your situation.
 
Last edited:
the greatest cost in in the network is the last mile of it. the wire that runs into every home in the country and that for most BT has long written down. its that duplication that makes it not worth anyone else trying to do the same as they know should they BT will upgrade their own existing infrastructure. one of the major reasons for Fujitsu pulling out of BDUK bids.

we dont run multiple water pipes, electricity networks or road systems run by different companies so why do it with telecoms?
 
Because the road network is nationalised. Water supplier you don't have a choice in, and for gas and electricity your retail supplier pays transit costs to the companies that own the infrastructure, just like Be or Sky or yes, even BT, pay Openreach.

I give up. If you want a nationalised communications network then just say it, then prepare for it to be as badly run as the GPO was.
 
mark2410 said:
the greatest cost in in the network is the last mile of it. the wire that runs into every home in the country and that for most BT has long written down. its that duplication that makes it not worth anyone else trying to do the same as they know should they BT will upgrade their own existing infrastructure. one of the major reasons for Fujitsu pulling out of BDUK bids.

we dont run multiple water pipes, electricity networks or road systems run by different companies so why do it with telecoms?
Click to expand...

Again, look into how those utilites actually work.
 
im well aware of how they work (well not water, is different here)

and i dont want nationalised telecoms, what do you think i am, a labour mp? i want a separation between service providers and infrastructure owners. even ofcom believed that BT had to be restricted and make them act notionally separately. i say go the whole way and split them.

then by all means openreach can charge and do whatever it likes.
 
But how would Openreach being split from BT suddenly make unprofitable extentions profitable? This is the bit you are failing to address.

They could have every ISP in the country pushing your you to get fibre, but if it won't be profitable, they won't do it. Nor should they have to.
 
Again, that article is about Sky wanting to jump in and avoid paying Openreach for GEA after the cabinet has already been built and the DSLAMs installed. That doesn't make running FTTC to 6 houses in a village suddenly viable. Posting it twice doesn't make it more relevant to the situation you're arguing about.

If it was profitable it would already have service, there is nothing for anyone to gain by not serving a community that would make money. Running around in circles and saying "well I don't think it's unprofitable" doesn't change economics. People who know a lot more about the subject than you have decided that it wouldn't make money. If you know better then go and sign your neighbours up for your new FTTC ISP and pay for the cabinet to be upgraded, then come back when you've made your fortune and rub our noses in it.
 
If it were profitable, you would be upgraded. Why on earth would BT/Openreach purposely turn down profit? Splitting up BT and Openreach isn't going to change that.

Nor will unbundling FTTC cabinets suddenly automagicly upgrade non FTTC cabinets. That will still require investment, which means they need to see a return.
 
you mean if BT thinks it is worth their while.

thats my point, if others think they can do it profitably why not allow them to use existing cabinet infrastructure. clearly it worked with exchange based llu so why do you think that slu wouldnt do the same thing for market i dont understand.
 
Jesus Christ learn to read. There is no existing cabinet infrastructure. That's the bit that costs the money to put there. Sky aren't asking Openreach for permission to build their own network, they don't have to ask anyone. Sky want to rent ports in a FTTC cabinet. The cabinet that doesn't exist. Are you keeping up?

If Openreach don't think something is worth their while after ROI calculations show it to be profitable then they'd have a lot of angry shareholders.
 
mark2410 said:
you mean if BT thinks it is worth their while.

thats my point, if others think they can do it profitably why not allow them to use existing cabinet infrastructure. clearly it worked with exchange based llu so why do you think that slu wouldnt do the same thing for market i dont understand.
Click to expand...

Unbundling the FTTC cabinets will not change YOUR cabinet! Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Just pretend I posted that picard_facepalm.jpg here or something. I'm done trying to have a debate with a broken record.
 
Caged said:
Jesus Christ learn to read. There is no existing cabinet infrastructure. That's the bit that costs the money to put there. Sky aren't asking Openreach for permission to build their own network, they don't have to ask anyone. Sky want to rent ports in a FTTC cabinet. The cabinet that doesn't exist. Are you keeping up?

If Openreach don't think something is worth their while after ROI calculations show it to be profitable then they'd have a lot of angry shareholders.
Click to expand...

sky want to use existing cabinets. let them install their own equipment in them.

and again just because openreach doest think its profitable doesnt mean others think the same or that it wouldnt be profitable.
 
Woden said:
Unbundling the FTTC cabinets will not change YOUR cabinet! Jesus.
Click to expand...

i agree, i never claimed it would.


though i do believe BT are in error regarding the profitability of my own cabinet and i fail to see why anyone else ought to be prevented from enabling it if they believe it would be profitable to do so.
 
copy pasted form else where

What is FTTC unbundling?

Sky, TalkTalk and other ISPs currently provide FTTC connections using Virtual Unbundled Local Access (VULA), which gives them some control but uses BT’s equipment in the cabinet and uses BT’s fibre backhaul network to reach the internet.

FTTC unbundling, also known as SLU (sub-loop unbundling) Bitstream, would allow an ISP to put their own equipment into a BT street cabinet, and connect it to their own fibre backhaul network.

It’s similar to Local Loop Unbundling for conventional copper-based broadband, where ISPs put their own equipment into BT exchanges, connected to their own backhaul network.

With FTTC unbundling, the final part of the connection from the cabinet to the customer’s house will still use the old-fashioned copper wires.

Once they're unbundled, an ISP controls how much bandwidth its customers receive, potentially opening up higher speeds than BT Openreach can provide in crucial periods such as peak-time.
 
Caged said:
Just pretend I posted that picard_facepalm.jpg here or something. I'm done trying to have a debate with a broken record.
Click to expand...

It's not worth the hassle talking to people like this that just refer to 'BT' when they have no idea how it works with Openreach, BT Wholesale and BT Retail.

94PvO.gif


Mark2410, the best way you can use your pent up aggression towards 'BT' would be to actively speak with ANY network provider that has 'code powers' to build a network for you to have your precious fibre connection.

This is the end of the thread for me (and perhaps even another guest on my ignore list :D).
 
Last edited:
i generally use BT to refer to BT as the BT group entire. it seems extraneous to bother differentiating when its the very nature of them being one group that i view as the root problem.
 
mark2410 said:
sky want to use existing cabinets. let them install their own equipment in them.
Click to expand...

Have you seen inside these BT cabinets? They are made as compact as possible already, they are already FILLED with BT's cab/exchange equipment..

And if Sky even had room to put in 'their own equipment' - then what?! What is this 'equipment' going to be connected too? The non-fibre cables to the exchange? I wonder what improvement you would see.. :rolleyes:

Reading this thread I am constantly /facepalming at every mark2410 post it is cringe worthy.
 
Sparx said:
Have you seen inside these BT cabinets? They are made as compact as possible already, they are already FILLED with BT's cab/exchange equipment..

And if Sky even had room to put in 'their own equipment' - then what?! What is this 'equipment' going to be connected too? The non-fibre cables to the exchange? I wonder what improvement you would see.. :rolleyes:

Reading this thread I am constantly /facepalming at every mark2410 post it is cringe worthy.
Click to expand...

But why not let them try?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom