By: MarkJ - 5 January, 2011 (7:13 AM) - Score: 10886 - Fixed Line Broadband
The head of BT Wholesale, Sally Davis, has warned the UK government not to risk giving out a significant slice of the £530m pot, which has been set aside by its Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) office until 2015 (rising to £830m in 2017) to help improve the country's broadband prospects, to smaller ISPs.According to the FT, government ministers would also prefer local consortiums to bid for the cash and not just the larger operators. This is naturally a competitive threat to BT Wholesale, which over the past few years has seen its market eroded by unbundled ( LLU ) providers and new regulation.
Davis has been quick to caution that such rural networks could risk creating a patchwork of different operators and technologies, which might be incompatible and expensive for BT Wholesale to connect into its core infrastructure.
BT Wholesale's Sally Davis remarked:
"It’s like when the railways were built and you had all these different gauges and they didn’t connect."
"It’s like when the railways were built and you had all these different gauges and they didn’t connect."
The comment appears to be aimed at the success of projects like those pioneered by Fibrestream ( NextGenUs ) in the rural Lincolnshire village of Ashby de la Launde. The privately funded and community owned network was partly built by the community itself and thus hasn't required even one penny of taxpayers' money, yet offers download speeds of up to 100Mbps over a true Fibre-to-the-Home ( FTTH ) fibre optic broadband platform (here).
Networks like Fibrestream's (see our - 'Interview with Fibrestream') usually exist because BT has failed to provide a realistically affordable alternative to such communities, with smaller operators often being able to offer significantly more for a lot less.
The trade off is that such platforms may not be as open (wholesale) to other ISPs as BT's platform. However, given the option between controlling their own affordable superfast platform and being stuck with a super-slow BT copper link, most isolated communities would probably choose the former.
For the time being BT Wholesale probably doesn't have to worry. Projects like the one mentioned above are still somewhat restricted by the high tax and tightly regulated environment of infrastructure development, which to some extent BT can avoid. Smaller community ISPs often lack the scale to be a real threat, although that could easily change if BT doesn't stay competitive.
Tweet
Comments: 32
trefPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 9:24 AM
Link to comment
Don't know why someone would necessarily want to connect into the BT Wholesale core infrastructure if they are offering their own service. Also these connections are typically 1Gig Ethernet which is a global standard.
cyberdoylePosted: 5 January, 2011 - 9:51 AM
Link to comment
BT wholesale need competition. If government lets public funding go into the copper cabal it will be a scandal. The grassroots fibre networks don't need to connect to openreach in any shape or form... bring on the fibre. JFDI.
timelessPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 10:55 AM
Link to comment
heh BT are only complaining because they are not getting it all and having to pay for upgrades out of their own pockets.
cyberdoylePosted: 5 January, 2011 - 11:05 AM
Link to comment
BT are scared to death that their golden goose is dead. If the communities JFDI then their FTTH service will be so superior and affordable it will put an end to the copper cabal once and for all.
The BT engineers who have been tearing their hair out for years will all come and work for the new networks, and this will become a digitalbritain at last.
The fatcats can find another job (banking?) and the shareholders can jump ship and buy shares in the new networks. Because they are the future.
Or gov can hand the funding to BT and we stay in the digital slow lane?
chris
timmayPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 11:30 AM
Link to comment
About time to, BT stand to loose 33% of the UK to community/small local networks and the rest to LLU, GEA-FTTC and VM.
But I doubt they will actually do anything about it. And I hope they don't.
BT are just run by shareholders with no understanding and simply want to rip-off the UK and delay innovation.
New_LondonerPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 11:44 AM
Link to comment
Suggest those of you promoting the digital village daydreamers look at some previous "cumminty" projects such as the various community wi-fi schemes in the south of ENgland that died on their feet when the people concerned realised that running a network is much harder than building it.
What about practical considerations like having a choice of service providers on your new network, being able to connect to others etc? Sadly a lot of the rhetoric is coming from idealists with little or no actual experience or understanding of the practicalities involved.
By the way, suggest people stop peddling the notion that the UK is way behind the rest of the world. Look at factors such as avilability to % population, pricing, choice of service provider, usage levels and even speeds and you will see that the facts do not support your contention.
wirelesspacmanPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 12:52 PM
Link to comment
I doubt that BT Wholesale has much to worry about as the Govt is generally scared s***less at the thought of helping small local providers and much prefers to waste millions on needless handouts to operators like BT.
This is a real shame as a "patchwork of different operators and technologies" is just what is needed to drive innovation forward. A period of chaos is just what we could do with as we progress towards the new dawn!
RocklettPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 2:38 PM
Link to comment
If BT are allowed some of the fund, they should be disallowed from utilising copper based FTTC wherever the funding is granted, FTTP only please!
Adrian WoosterPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 3:11 PM
Link to comment
I guess this means we matter!
Standards? ALA covers that very well, together with the passive infrastructure work being done by the BSG - both of which BT are involved in.
More generally, wouldn't it be very odd if a whole nation went in search of a solution and without any dissent they all came up with the exactly same answer? Properly functioning markets develop choice and variety. Some of those choices may be small, others large, some risk averse, some daring - that's what markets are. And that's why JON Exchange is being created - to join a competitive market together.
The patchwork is exactly what we need!
SPPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 3:16 PM
Link to comment
Not sure people commenting on this news story really understand how networks are built and operate. If grants are given to local network providers they may well be able to do more for the money, but it will not be an open standard. BT have to make their network open to others, and this will be a requirement for local network providers. The local providers are going to have a hard time ensuring their network speaks the same as BT's - I'm not sure why everyone refers to BT (I suppose they're the largest), but consider Virgin aswell. Try and think beyond download/upload speeds. The real reason for the fibre deployment is to drive the economy - not so 15 year old kids can watch youtube and access facebook quickly. Its for businesses! And businesses will use VoIP, video conf, and apps - all of which will need Qos throughout the network (end to end).
Earl SwimminglyPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 4:27 PM
Link to comment
"It’s like when the railways were built and you had all these different gauges and they didn’t connect."
I assume that if BT were building the railways, everyone in the towns would have to Horse & Cart it to their nearest big city for a train, and when they got there is was a knackered ye olde northern rail pacer waiting for them.
Well done to the small guys shaming the big dinosaurs at BT. Aren't the Tories keen on encouraging new businesses? Get funding these local forward thinking enterprises now.
NAME REMOVEDPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 5:06 PM
Link to comment
I expected this from BT. It is timed well with their annoucement of the 6 winning exchanges. Some of which are rural and the whole point of the winning 6 is a message to BDUK/Government that BT have a solution for the rural areas, and they dont need to consider any other alternative supplier.
Even if we had BT FTTC everywhere, I have been informed from a customer that the contracted 40Mb download speed is delivering 5.5Mb. Not exactly NGA
CarlosdajackalPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 5:14 PM
Link to comment
To be honest, a few local communities could benefit from deploying their own fibre network in the same guise as Hambleton et al. Saying that I'm not sure whether a fully fledged #digitalbritain 'patchwork' is necessarily going to be conjucive. All the other larger ISP's and LLU networks will need wholesale access to be able to provide services in these areas for competitive purposes. If you believe this shouldn't be the case, ask someone living in Hull what how they feel about a monopoly. We also may find ourselves back where we started some 5 years; whereby a number of the newer networks are acquired by larger netowrk operators for land growth, with customer service and support nothing but an after thought.
cyberdoylePosted: 5 January, 2011 - 6:09 PM
Link to comment
New Londoner, guess you don't know that what passes for broadband in this country is 1st generation, and will remain that way for decades unless innovation in the community using fibre to the home takes off.
We are very fortunate that we had the victorians. They started the phone network which is still running today, and has enabled very cheap broadband to be deployed over 2 thirds of the country. This in turn meant that take up has been good. But that is the past. Its time to move on to proper broadband. Next Generation access cannot come through copper. Cabinets are just protecting the copper for another decade and holding back innovation. Awareness is being raised thanks to the JFDI brigade. No wonder BT wholesale is panic stricken, so they darn well should be.
wirelesspacmanPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 7:13 PM
Link to comment
@SP - not sure you understand either.
"...but it will not be an open standard."
Ethernet is a pretty open standard, as are the ways of lighting up fibres etc.
"...local providers are going to have a hard time ensuring their network speaks the same as BT's"
If that proves to be the case, then most likely it will be because BT puts some very non-open kit in the way and tries to be as obstructive as possible.
"...will use VoIP, video conf, and apps - all of which will need Qos throughout the network (end to end)"
VoIP doe not "need" formal end to end QoS, neither does video conf.
New_LondonerPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 7:27 PM
Link to comment
@wirelesspacman
"Ethernet is a pretty open standard, as are the ways of lighting up fibres etc"
The simple connecting of circuits does not unfortunately provide for such thorny issues as provision of service, billing etc. The interconnection of back office systems (OSS) is, or can be, very expensive.
New_LondonerPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 7:41 PM
Link to comment
@CD
Actually I think you'll find that ADSL technologies have made broadband accesible to over 99% of the population, not 66% as stated.
No idea why you think that FTTP is a pre-requisite for NGA - suggest you look at what is in th emarket today with cable and FTTC, let alone what has already been demonstrated in the labs. FTTP has advantages for new build but it is not correct to say that FTTP is required for NGA.
New_LondonerPosted: 5 January, 2011 - 7:46 PM
Link to comment
@Rocklett
Good to see that the fibre fetishists are alive and kicking!
I look forward to reading your business plan to show how you're raising the £25bn or so to deliver FTTP across the country, as well as your proposals for pricing a service that people will pay for whilst keeping your investors happy!
Do bear in mind that you can have fibre services delivered anywhere in the country today if you want them and can pay - for example, 1Gbps Ethernet circuits.
For the rest of us, I think we're happy with a service that meets our needs at a reasonable price. If that happens to be delivered over fibre then fair enough but I'm not losing any sleep having my 40Mbps broadband delivered via FTTC.
wirelesspacmanPosted: 6 January, 2011 - 7:06 AM
Link to comment
@ New_Londoner
Those sound more like excuses than reasons to me.
BTSUCKPosted: 6 January, 2011 - 10:04 AM
Link to comment
Guess its easy to spot those with ties to BT. Crying like spoilt little children just like their precious organisation does when it stands to lose money.
Whos this New_Londoner and where does IT get off calling people names like "daydreamers".
The more organisations given the chance to bring future broadband services to this country the better, competition fuels development, which we all benefit from.
LLU services which have gained stride in recent years, combined with cable services and now firms like Rutland that are willing to do areas BT and no one else will touch is a good thing.
I dont see how or why dozy Ms Davis is flapping her lips. Maybe BT should put their money where their whingy gob is and give the whole country Fibre services if they are concerned about "a patchwork of different operators and technologies"... As it is though its still only 2/3rds they want to hook up.
BTSUCKPosted: 6 January, 2011 - 10:09 AM
Link to comment
Worried about Patchwork services accross the country are they?
More like they are worried about their profit whoring.
If they dont want a patchwork of services in the UK, roll out your own service to 100% coverage BT. Then others wont have to fill in the gaps you clowns ignore.
But oh no cant do that either as that involves spending money also, so instead they just roll out another spokes person clown and make themselves look idiots as usual.
The shareholders and those with ties to BT then roll out in mass to defend their idiotic statements...... Some things never change.
RocklettPosted: 6 January, 2011 - 4:51 PM
Link to comment
@New_Londoner
Glad you are happy with your 40Mbps FTTC connection but do remember with a rate adaptive VDSL2 service you will be one of the very few users who achieve that speed!
I didn't say BT shouldn't roll out FTTC, they definitely should. However when there is a subsidy offered, to avoid complexity that should be for non rate adaptive services only.
For BT, FTTP is the only way to guarantee fast speeds (Virgin can use Fibre/Coax hybrid), especially now BT have dropped the rate adaptive 15Mbps download minimum sync rate down to 5Mbps. With this in mind I feel they should not be subsidised for a rollout of FTTC/VDSL2.
BT are likely to be forced to upgrade most copper broadband with the recent EC directive on minimum speeds (30Mbps by 2020), so why pay them to temporarily upgrade a greater than 5Mbps service?
The planned Cornish rollout seems a reasonable model.
aledmPosted: 6 January, 2011 - 11:53 PM
Link to comment
@New_Londoner community wi-fi schemes in the south of ENgland that died on their feet when the people concerned realised that running a network is much harder than building it
Not quite - they died because BT muscled in on exchanges which they'd previously declared unviable but which the community WiFi projects demonstrated there was demand for broadband.
BT are repeating the same tactic with "Race to Infinity" to identify exchanges that have demand for broadband so as to forestall any competition in those areas.
Unfortunately the "winners" will be saddled with an inferior solution.
aledmPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 12:19 AM
Link to comment
@New_Londoner ...choice of service provider...
There aren't as many service providers as BT or their puppets at Ofcom would like you to believe.
I hardly count BT IPstream/WBMC resellers as real choice so most areas (nearly 70% of exchanges outside of London) don't have anyone but BT.
Half the country (by population, so mostly built-up areas) has the choice of Virgin Media.
aledmPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 12:29 AM
Link to comment
@New_Londoner: fibre fetishists...deliver FTTP across the country
I think you've missed the point. This isn't about fibre for fibre's sake.
BT should have been installing FTTC and FTTH as a matter of course for the past 20+ years. By allowing them to abuse their monopoly position we're left with an inferior infrastructure that BT is milking due in part to a lack of knowledge (amongst the public and the government) of how much better it could be.
We (community activists) aren't trying to solve all the countries problems. We just want to solve the problems in our local areas. Given the government wants to help financially, we believe that if this money was given to BT, we wouldn't get as much benefit as if we were given the opportunity to build the networks we want.
BT isn't motivated to build the best community access solutions. BT is motivated to pay bonuses and dividend
aledmPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 12:45 AM
Link to comment
@New_Londoner: you can have fibre services delivered anywhere in the country today if you want them and can pay
But only from BT, so the price you pay is quite high.
If there were competitive local fibre access networks (not just a bunch of BT resellers) the price would be cheaper, right?
We need competition (especially since we're not good at regulation)
@New_Londoner: I think we're happy with a service that meets our needs at a reasonable price.
You clearly don't run a business and tried to get any service in a rural area (or outside of central London in fact.) Our needs are not being met and BT's prices are not reasonable.
BTSUCKSPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 2:24 AM
Link to comment
Much as i dislike saying it, and it sounds corny on the internet but, reading some of New_Londoners other posts it sounds like he/she works for BT in some manner or obviously has a vested interest in how much profit they can generate.
I cant think of any other reason someone would come on here call other people names like "daydreamers" and "fibre fetishists" (I guess moderation here is pretty slack as they seem to have got away with that little stunt for a while now) and insist ANY single company having a monopoly and not wanting others to have their own networks be they big or small is a bad thing.
He/She obviously doesnt want BT to have competition, and to not want that you must have some vested interest in the company in some manner. Theres no other reason to make yourself look stupid defending BT over things like this story.
Probably best to ignore them in future.
BTSUCKSPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 2:29 AM
Link to comment
Oh looking at the site thinkbroadband which i havent bothered with in must be close to a 2 years due to their biased reporting the same New_Londoner person seems to spread their bile on that site also along with a few others.
Who would had ever though a few BT staff or OAP shareholders would feel the need to defend the almighty BT? I guess other companies involved in broadband provisioning must be doing something right if these types have came out of the woodwork with worry to defend BT.... Pretty funny but sad at the same time.
FibreGuyPosted: 7 January, 2011 - 8:09 PM
Link to comment
@BTSUCKS
The sad part is that it takes all parties to work together to realise the future-proof Digital Services the nation requires.
The 4th Utility is a benchmark, a simple test of whether or not the UK is a technologically advanced nation.
And FttH, the pure glass path, is the only credible means of delivering said future-proofing and the sooner the better so we all can reap the benefits.
The FiWiPie has slices for any who can help and from whom this creation of a world-leading 4th Utility providing future-proof Digital Services needs the goodwill and cooperative approach of everyone concerned BT included.
BTSUCKSPosted: 10 January, 2011 - 3:09 AM
Link to comment
^^^^ NO the sad part is as the story states...
BT want all the government cash
BT dont want smaller firms to offer people solutions
BT dont want to spend money hooking up those smaller firms and rural people those smaller firms provide to as it costs them money.
BT, see my username for these comments... End of discussion, nothing further needs adding, they are greddy oinks that want to live in the past.
TripsPosted: 11 January, 2011 - 5:58 AM
Link to comment
I've no problem with local projects getting the cash, especially if it means communities get connected on fibre quicker.
However, I don't think that people should only have the choice of 1 ISP as currently happens with the likes of Rutland Telecom and their terrible usage allowances. They should be made to wholesale it the same as BT are. After all, fair's fair.
Andy SPosted: 9 May, 2011 - 4:36 PM
Link to comment
It is just like a David and Goliath story on one side we have the slow dawdling progress of a big company with no vision, set against smaller more visionary groups with drive and determination.
It is not hard BT you are just decades behind the rest of us. Stop piss arsing about, get your act together and stop pouring money down the drain on pathetic half measures that a three year old could come up with.
Generated in 0.7424 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).