Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

CityFibre Accuse BT of Soft Peddling on the Rollout of True Fibre Broadband

Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 (2:04 am) - Score 2,205

CityFibre Holdings, which builds UK fibre optic broadband infrastructure (FTTP) for business, public sector and domestic needs, has criticised BT for choosing to “soft-pedal” on the roll-out of true Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) based broadband services because of an “overwhelming bias” towards slower FTTC technology.

Both BT and CityFibre make use of FTTP style technology, which runs a high capacity fibre optic cable directly to your home or business. This cuts out the interference and instability of using existing copper cable and can thus deliver speeds of up to and possibly beyond 1Gbps (Gigabits per second). Unfortunately it’s also prohibitively expensive for BT alone to roll-out on a truly national scale.

As a result the operator’s £2.5bn superfast broadband deployments are dominated by Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC), which delivers a fast fibre optic cable to BT’s street cabinets. The remaining connection (between cabinets and homes) is done using VDSL2 (like ADSL but faster over short distances) via existing copper cable. It’s much cheaper but also significantly slower over longer lines.

James Enck, CityFibre’s Head of Corporate Development, said:

If the accounts of BT’s recent message to the House of Lords Select Committee are to be believed [related article here]. It is entirely unsurprising to observers of NGA developments in the UK that BT would choose to soft-pedal on true FTTP, given its overwhelming bias towards FTTC in its Infinity deployment.

The company also clearly has constraints in terms of its ability to radically change course. As the company’s latest results show, it ended its most recent financial year with £844m in cash and £1.5bn in available banking facilities, which implies a significant amount of financial headroom if the company wanted to pour more money into capex in support of a rollout comprising more true FTTP. However, against this, the company must weigh the various interests of shareholders (dividend payments, share price maintenance), lenders (credit ratings) and its commitments to its pension recovery plan, which total £2.4bn in top-up payments over the next nine years.

Given that anything remotely resembling a “nuclear” option on NGA investment would cause friction with stakeholders on all sides, our own back-of-the envelope working assumption on BT’s effective annual headroom for additional fibre investment has been around the £1bn mark. However, even this sort of incremental commitment to fibre investment would no doubt prompt some uncomfortable conversations with influential shareholders.”

CityFibre’s “back-of-the envelope working” isn’t terribly difficult to arrive at because BT has already pledged to invest an additional £1bn (total £3.5bn) into an expanded roll-out of superfast broadband services. But that would be contingent upon the operator winning a lions share of public subsidy and they’d still need a lot more to do a true fibre deployment, with some earlier estimates pointing to £15bn-£20bn.

At present BT’s £2.5bn will help their superfast broadband services pass around 66% of the UK population come 2014 (it currently covers almost 40%), which could be extended to 90% by 2017 with the governments entire Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) office budget of £530m; plus an extra £300m from the BBC between 2015 and 2017 if necessary. There’s also that £150m Urban Broadband Fund to consider (here).

CityFibre suggests that BT could find more money if it needed and points to the operators recent £738m three-year football rights deal for its BTVision (IPTV) service, which they claim is only good as a “short-term commitment” and would perhaps be better invested into the “long-term commitment [of] transforming the nature of connectivity in the UK market“.

In fairness BT tends to take a lot of flak over this and not all of it is fair. The operator has invested a significant amount of money and FTTC should be fine for most people, although some won’t received the best speeds and the day will certainly come when a more capable solution is required. Similarly BT must also deal with expensive rural areas, which other operators simply ignore.

In the meantime next year’s Spring 2013 launch of FTTP-On-Demand, which effectively makes FTTP available almost anywhere that their slower FTTC service can already go (with a few caveats), might help to fill a few gaps (here).

Leave a Comment
235 Responses
  1. DTMark says:

    Why criticise BT? As a sort-of-privatised telephone company, they can do whatever they like with their own money.

    If that means that BT aren’t going to be deploying superfast broadband, then we need to look at the market to see who will.

    Oops.

    Try cricitising the Government instead – this one, and previous ones, for the disaster that is broadband in Britain and just leave BT with their old phone lines.

  2. Deduction says:

    ^^^ LOL gonna be interesting next couple of years now more and more true Fibre companies are speaking out against them, more and more are refusing BTs FTTC plans for varying reasons and the BDUK is now starting to come get a hammering from many organisations 😀

    1. Somerset says:

      What does ‘refusing BTs FTTC plans ‘ mean?

    2. Deduction says:

      See prior news items and towns that have refused their product for varying reasons.

    3. Somerset says:

      You mean local authorities refusing, which ones other then Kensington & Chelsea?

    4. FibreFred says:

      So thats a total of one town that has refused to have Fttc and one “bid” rejected , priceless

    5. Deduction says:

      Even more priceless Cumbria is a COUNTY not a TOWN you fool!

    6. FibreFred says:

      I’m talking about Kensington refusing and one bid rejected

    7. Deduction says:

      Kensington is a district in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

    8. FibreFred says:

      Your point? No point as usual

    9. Deduction says:

      Re-read what you said thats the point YOU WRONG AGAIN

    10. Deduction says:

      Ill give you a hint before you post more meaningless turd with another ID……..

      Try learning what a borough, county and TOWN actually are

    11. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Not referring to The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea correctly does not negate Someerset’s observation that your comment “more and more are refusing BTs FTTC plans for varying reasons” is a bit far-fetched. “More and more” suggests substantially more than two.

    12. Deduction says:

      It was you Fibrefred ID that referred to it wrongly, if you cut down on the IDs you might remember which one said what

    13. FibreFred says:

      Its not even two New_Londoner, its one, the other rejected a bid, perfectly normal part of tendering and the bid process.

      So, one area have refused to date, not the “more and more”, yet another error of his

    14. Deduction says:

      1 rejected their bid 1 rejected their cabinets…… AKA MORE than one.

  3. New_Londoner says:

    Difficult to follow CFH’s point here. Rather than focusing on one of its competitors, perhaps it should concentrate on delivering something worthwhile instead. Where is its investment plan, how many £bn of its own funds is it proposing to invest on FTTP or C per annum?

    1. Mark Jackson says:

      I think a rough summary of that can be found here, although you may need to follow some of the related links to our older news articles for more detail:

      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/03/02/cityfibre-uk-agrees-significant-metro-fibre-broadband-investment-with-citigroup.html

    2. New_Londoner says:

      @MarkJ
      Thanks – I think the key phrase is “Sadly the precise details of their next deployment are not yet known”.

  4. FibreFred says:

    Rival telco complains BT isn’t doing enough to rollout FTTP widely across the UK but won’t rollout FTTP widely across the UK themselves either, news shocker alert 😮

    1. New_Londoner says:

      Quite! There seem to be a lot of these companies that talk a fantastic story but deliver little or nothing themselves.

    2. Deduction says:

      And rightly so when BT are the ones grabbing millions in funding.

    3. Somerset says:

      And BT also rolling out in areas without external funding.

    4. New_Londoner says:

      Nothing stopping CFH’S from bidding, no doubt councils would be very attracted to their FTTP offer, especially in rural areas. Would require firm funding commitments on their part though, built into the contract. I wonder whether they will be included in the BDUK framework contract given their firm stance on this…..?

    5. Bob says:

      Simple if you have an incumbent operator who has almost total control of the market it is very difficult to complete even the government schemes favour BT

    6. Deduction says:

      Still waiting on you to name one of those Somerset, you can keep saying they are, it wont make it true.

    7. Somerset says:

      How about Solihull, unless you can show specific details of funding for the existing FTTC rollout there.

    8. Deduction says:

      Opps dumbo…….
      http://www.cswbroadband.org.uk/

      quote”Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire councils have secured £4.07m of funding to be spent on improving the communications infrastructure of our rural areas to allow for faster broadband access.”

      DOH!!!

      Try again…….. I see we are back to the pattern where you cant name an area……… WHAT A SHOCKER

    9. Somerset says:

      Existing rollout in the area, not possible future funding.

    10. Deduction says:

      LOL what are you talking about its clear from that Solihull is not being doing at BTs own expense, government funds now, a day later, month later, year later doesnt matter that clearly shows government money is going to be funding parts of Solihull…..
      SO ILL ASK YOU AGAIN (this is getting a nice habbit now)
      NAME ANY AREA WHICH IS BEING FUNDED AT BTs AND ONLY BTs EXPENSE.

      Pleaase go ahead and randomly name another area see i can make you look an idiot again.

      Maybe you should do your research before you open your gob for once.

    11. Deduction says:

      Not sure what your point is supposed to be, are you trying to say areas with more tha 2 providers dont get funding and thus BT are doing those areas at their own expense?

      I hope thats not what you are trying to say LOL

    12. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Quote: “SO ILL ASK YOU AGAIN (this is getting a nice habbit now) NAME ANY AREA WHICH IS BEING FUNDED AT BTs AND ONLY BTs EXPENSE.”

      You must have a short memory as you made similar wild claims in April and never did manage to back them up with evidence.

      You may recall you suggested that none of the FTTC/P areas to date had been fully funded by BT, yet have failed over a period of 2 months to show that the deployments to date in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Basingstoke or Chelmsford had received any governmet funding. You instead pointed to possible future funding in some of these areas, which is another thing entirely.

      So in answer to your question, I refer you to my list of 5 locations. Evidence from you that I’m wrong has been consicuous by its absence for 2 months now.

    13. Somerset says:

      If these areas don’t get external funding then it must be BT funding…

    14. Deduction says:

      What areas? You havent named any which are not subject to government funding.

    15. Somerset says:

      Those premises in Solihull served by the current FTTC rollout.

    16. Deduction says:

      So you havent proved anything seeing as your original claim was Solihull will be and is ENTIRELY FUNDED BY BT which it is not.

    17. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Still no response then? Two months and counting…..

    18. Deduction says:

      No response to what? already shown solihull isnt entirely funded by BT not my though you cant click links

    19. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      To c;arify, you have yet to show how the FTTC/P deployments to date in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Basingstoke or Chelmsford had received any government funding. A question you were first asked in April after you claimed all of the existing deployments were subsidised by public funding.

      And to be clear, this is for the existing deployments and for funding that has already been paid, not future deployment or possible future funds. A link to something showing government funding (a tender awards perhaps?) for each of the above five locations will be fine, as long as it is dated before April 2012 and the money was paid pre April 2012 when your claim was made.

    20. Deduction says:

      Nope i answered and showed all that its just you are too stupid to click the links that were provided.

    21. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Actually you have yet to provide relevant links. For example, you did link to content about the Urban Broadband Fund, however none of this money has even been granted by the government to local authorities, let alone been paid to any companies after a tender. So this is not relevant in supporting your claim.

      Please feel free to show that public money has already contributed to the existing deployments of FTTC/P in each of the five locations.

    22. Deduction says:

      I told you to google ERDF also, and obviously you havent

    23. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      You’re quite correct, I have not googled ERDF, we both agree on that!

      Since we’re reminding each other what we haven’t done, you haven’t provided links to back up your claim that every FTTC/P deployment to date has had some government funding. Starting with the five locations I’ve listed above.

    24. Deduction says:

      As stated those areas have been covered by me previously, i am not going to repeat it for your benefit, you are not worthy, especially with the admission you didnt do as told in the first place.

    25. Somerset says:

      No information on ERDF funding the existing BT FTTC cabinets exists.

    26. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      To be clear, I’ve not bothered googling it because its neither relevant to the areas concerned, nor is it a productive use of my tiume if you can’t be bothered (ie can’t) provide direct links to material supporting your wild claims on funding.

      In much the same way that you’ve been unable to substantiate your equally wild (some might say deluded) claims to be able to prove that 90% of us do not live within 1km of a cabinet, even though a report published by Ofcom has since been posted that clearly says that we do.

      And by the way, trying to change subsequently to say 90% of us don’t live within 1km of DSLAMs is pointless as that is patently not true in the first place. 90% of us don’t live within 1km of the sun either, but you didn’t say you’d disprove that either.

      So please either provide links that dgo directly to specific evidence to back up your claims about public funding paying towards the cost of the pre-April 2012 deployment of FTTC/P in Basingstoke, Cardiff, Chelmsford, Edinburgh and London or admit that you were mistaken. Same concerning your “proof” that 90% of us don’t live within 1km of a cabinet whilst your at it please.

      Either that or stop making these wild, ubsubstantiated claims that usually turn out to be nothing more than your misguided opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, just don’t present it as fact all the time.

    27. Deduction says:

      Theres plenty of information and just because you once again decided to say the same reply twice with 2 different IDs again with as near 1 hour gap between them wont alter the fact either.

    28. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      So rather than post links to the evidence that backs up your wild claims, your resorting to “the answer’s out there” instead? Relying on others to search for it and satisfy themselves that you’re right, even though you’re unable to do so yourself?

      Its an unusual approach to take, surprising when many others think that you made it up in the first place and can’t provide the links because they don’t exist.

      Unless you can show links as requested for those five locations then I think we can all conclude that it is total nonsense to say that every BT deployment of FTTC/P to date across the country has been part-funded by public money. But then we all knew that anyway.

    29. Deduction says:

      Nope because if you re-read i have previously provided you with links. As i also pointed out its not my fault if you didnt click them and refuse to also do searches you were told to do. Denying the evidence has been posted previously and still refusing to search for what you were told means posting anything that proves my claim again is just a waste of time, as you have demonstrated you dont read or click it anyway.

    30. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      I stand by what I said. You have not provided relevant links that substantiate your claim, pretending otherwise is pointless.

    31. Deduction says:

      Good stand by that view and ill stand by mine that you are an idiot that doesnt read any links that are provided and now we are both happy.

    32. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      I’ll be happy to read relevant links when you provide them, one for each of the five locations showing the awards of public funds to BT for FTTC/P at the completion of a tender the pre-dates April 2012 will be fine. So thats five direct links, and not just to something generic about ERDF or the Urban Broadband Fund etc in the vain hope that Google would throw up something useful.

    33. Deduction says:

      Ill repeat in the vain hope literacy actually at some point penetrates…
      Good stand by that view and ill stand by mine that you are an idiot that doesnt read any links that are provided and now we are both happy.

    34. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      In other words, behind the bluster you don’t actually have any evidence to point to as you made it up in the first lpace. Shame, however the truth comes out in the end.

  5. Just a geek says:

    Bt is a private company and the cost of deploying FTTP is too much for it….maybe the companies who are complaining could lay their own network now there is a duct/ploe sharing programme but they wont because of the cost ..

    1. Deduction says:

      What duct and pole programme?

    2. New_Londoner says:

      PIA?

    3. Deduction says:

      Theres no Pole sharing programme from what i know… Would be a bit daft using BT cables upto the pole and then a company using their own from pole to house, not to mention most poles dont have space for others cables.

    4. Somerset says:

      Read about PIA.

    5. DTMark says:

      There is no duct or pole sharing arrangement.

      If providers could lease ducting, then we’d have a potential network to the end user.

      That presumes that good quality usable ducting exists. See below comments about Milton Keynes for instance.

      PIA is not leasing ducting. It is making the ducting available to providers, but if it’s blocked, then the provider has to pay BT to unblock it.

      Providers would have to mad to go down this route.

      And it still leaves us needing a usable last mile ducting network.

    6. Deduction says:

      INDEED as usual Somerset is speaking nonsense with nothing to back up his claims

    7. FibreFred says:

      Deduction and dtmark suggest you read what pia is

    8. Deduction says:

      I suggest you take your personalty disorder and PIA OFF 🙂

    9. Somerset says:

      Passive Infrastructure Access.

    10. Deduction says:

      BTs whole roll out is passive in a complete different sense 😉

    11. New_Londoner says:

      So let’s agree that there IS in fact a duct and pole programme then, now some of us have read a bit more about PIA.

    12. Deduction says:

      NOPE, name anywhere in the entire country where another company has their own wires hanging from BT poles if its true.

    13. Somerset says:

      Available to those who want it.

    14. FibreFred says:

      “NOPE, name anywhere in the entire country where another company has their own wires hanging from BT poles if its true.”

      Greasby? http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4880-fujitsu-put-live-first-customers-using-openreach-duct-and-pole-sharing.html

    15. Deduction says:

      Scheme never went live from what i can see…. If im wrong where can you order that from?

    16. FibreFred says:

      And you asked for evidence, name me an area, area named, another failure.. do you have anymore questions?

      Seen as you keep repeating the same mistakes might I suggest you Google before putting your foot in your mouth again? I’m almost getting embarrassed on your behalf!

    17. Deduction says:

      There is no product or wires from poles.
      Link to where you can buy it if im wrong.

    18. Deduction says:

      Now try answering the question.

      Which ISPs have that for sale and what part of the country have another companies wires on a BT pole selling an actual product?

      Answer = NONE…….. Doesnt exist, its nothing more than an idea and over priced offering dreamed up in the minds of BT. NO products exist.

    19. FibreFred says:

      That wasn’t your question, that’s a new question, there go the goalposts again, suggest you re-read what you asked

    20. Deduction says:

      Re-read what i stated and the link you listed doesnt have anyones fibre cables dangling from poles.

    21. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      And what exactly do you have against Poles? In my experience they are very nice people, particularly my local barber.

  6. Legolash2o says:

    BT don’t need to roll out FTTP, FTTC is great for the everyday users, if anyone wants/needs faster then they can pay for it via FTTP on Demand.

    I’d personally rather have FTTC for most people than just FTTP to the lucky few.

    1. DTMark says:

      It’s a good point well made, but personally I’d rather have FTTP to about 75% of the urban parts of this country as a minimum and I don’t see that as unachievable or unrealistic. Put another way, it’s inevitable eventually. It’s only unachievable if you expect one sort-of-privatised entitity to do it and even if it did do it, leaves us with a choice of one in half the country, which is hardly a positive.

      The moment you stop looking at the project as “something to do with phone lines”, all things become possible. Hence my surprise at why CityFibre thinks BT will or should do it. Can CityFibre do it? Why BT? What assets does BT have in terms of ducting to premises? Are those assets good quality? Apparently, not.

      So it’s going to require a nationwide duct building programme anyway.

      Which isn’t going to happen in the private sector. You can’t beg providers to lay fibre, then help yourself to tax and charge them for digging up the roads to lay said fibre, can you. Basically, we need to build another Openreach (ducting only, no tech – that’s for providers). Pity we sold the old one off, might have given us a head start in some ways, but that’s done now.

      Getting fibre to the cabs is not a precursor to ubiquitous modern super-fast broadband because there’s still no economical way of getting from cab to house; BT says so. Actually, I don’t know whether that’s really true, or if it’s part of BT’s approach to make sure that the minimum gets spent. I’m going to assume it is true and take them at their word; that BT have no real advantage over anyone else including a new entrant, in terms of actually getting a fibre duct to a home.

      So why wire up those cabs in the first place if there is no reasonable way of getting from cab to house at any affordable cost?

      Why plough this money into something that won’t work (will not deliver the superfast broadband programme) and lock us on a course that will probably involve the further entrenchment of a monpoly to the obvious continued detriminent of the customer and which still won’t deliver now, let alone later?

    2. Deduction says:

      FTTP “On demand” product doesnt exist, so no thats not an option until its available NATIONWIDE.

    3. FibreFred says:

      “So why wire up those cabs in the first place if there is no reasonable way of getting from cab to house at any affordable cost? ”

      Its not affordable to run fibre from the cab into ducts and down from a pole?

    4. Somerset says:

      Why ‘nationwide’? Many things are not available everywhere eg. mains gas and Waitrose.

    5. DTMark says:

      “Why nationwide”

      The reason I picked a rather arbitrary number of 75% of urbans was initial cost. Though that should be able to creep up to 100% in time.

      “Towns and cities across the nation” would be better phrasing.

      Yes, I am excluding rurals. Without typing yet another essay I don’t see a problem in getting the ducting to the rural areas, but I suspect rurals will have to accept Wi-Fi.

    6. Deduction says:

      Its obviously not affordable BT thereself have said the ondemand product will have a “considerable” install cost.

    7. FibreFred says:

      A car has a considerable cost but it does not mean its not affordable. If it’s not affordable no one will buy it we’ll see next year I guess

    8. Deduction says:

      They have also stated due to the cost its aimed more at business, so not like a car at all.

    9. DTMark says:

      Fibre on demand has nothing to do with, nor is it compliant with, the aims of the superfast broadband project.

    10. New_Londoner says:

      @DTMark
      Not sure I follow you. WHy is it not “compliant”, IIRC it will support various broadband speeds of up to 330Mbs downstream, 30Mbps upstream. Easily exceeds the accepted definition of “Ultrafast” broadband, as used by the government and others.

    11. Deduction says:

      NOT compliant because the superfast broadband project was originally to support ONLY those that had little or slow access, it wasnt meant to be spent on upgrading urban areas to FTTC and then charging its users more to upgrade to “on demand”
      Thankfully the news today and BTs long term plans to use services like that to pay off their pension balls up have been nipped in the bud.

      That must really annoy you LMFAO

    12. New_Londoner says:

      QUote “NOT compliant because the superfast broadband project was originally to support ONLY those that had little or slow access, it wasnt meant to be spent on upgrading urban areas to FTTC and then charging its users more to upgrade to ‘on demand'”

      Really, says who? Remember the superfast broadband announcements and deployments by BT pre-date the government-led BDUK projects. So where did it say it would only do what you’ve stated? Or did you in fact mean the BDUK project? Important to be clear.

    13. Deduction says:

      Says me and the initial framework for funding…… And no before you ask you cant have a link you dont read them anyway, so again F&*K OFF and save you breath questioning me

    14. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      So as I thought, you don’t mean that “fibre on demand” is not compliant with the Superfast Broadband project at all, you mean its not compliant with the government funding priorities if its an upgrade from an existing FTTC line.

      Glad we cleared that up as your original statement was very confusing.

  7. DTMark says:

    @FibreFred

    “Its not affordable to run fibre from the cab into ducts and down from a pole?”

    Not my words. From a pole, maybe. Ducting between cab and pole all clean? What about the underground ones?

    It can take up to seven hours to wire up just one house, apparently – and that was in Milton Keynes, which would have relatively new ducting given that Milton Keynes hasn’t been there for very long.

    I suggested to you that up to 90 minutes would be about reasonable (cable taking about half an hour, so I’m being generous there) and was told this is rather ridiculous given the age of the network and the number of blocked and collapsed ducts.

    If it takes a long time to try to use the existing ducting, then what’s the point of the existing ducting? Where is BT’s advantage over anyone else in going that final 1km to the house, as I don’t see it.

    Because of that, I don’t see that “FTTC” is either a natural stepping stone on the path to broadband Britain or has any future upgradeability, rather, it appears to back us into something of a dead-end and cannot be the path to ubiquitous superfast broadband.

    1. FibreFred says:

      Leaving aside the cost of the fibre cable itself and the fibre DP on the pole its surely the same cost as running copper to that pole?

      Also once you’ve got one fibre cable to the pole that’s it its ready for multiple houses.

      Blocked/collapsed ducts is BT’s problem, it has to be cheaper than using new ducting. Of course FTTC is upgradable, if your only issue with upgradeability is blocked ducting that’s rather short sited.

      This time next year we’ll hopefully be seeing FTTP On demand in use and I’ll hopefully be handing out hats to eat 😉

    2. New_Londoner says:

      @DTMark
      You may not see any upgradeability for FTTC but that does not make you right. Up to 200Mbps is possible now with Profile 30a, 1Gbps is in the labs. It’s often cheaper to upgrade the electronics than to change the cabling, the latter requiring a great del more labour.

      By all means take a different path, if you have the funding?

    3. FibreFred says:

      It is certainly upgradeable, by using different profiles as you say New_Londoner and also different tech (g.fast etc) and then on top of that physically upgradeable by running fibre from the cab to the home.

      I see no issues with a green cab being a distribution centre for fibre, it has worked until now for copper

    4. DTMark says:

      The tired and discredited “up to” argument again from the phone company. (Do you see why I regard BT as a phone company, not a broadband company? Big clue there)

      Up to 24Meg is possible with ADSL2+ so what’s this fibre nonsense all about then? 24Meg is fine. Makes me wonder why we need fibre after all.

      Fibre on demand is not ubiquitous and is not compatible with the aims of the superfast broadband project. And it’s available now anyway, it’s called a leased line.

      “Leaving aside the cost of the fibre cable itself and the fibre DP on the pole its surely the same cost as running copper to that pole?”

      I thought so. So, fibre on demand will cost say £150 to install (say, 90 minutes or so @ 100/hour), then, much the same as a phone line installation, maybe just a little more. Am I right? What is BT’s “offer” here, as this is absolutely crucial to whether or not BT’s offering can meet the aims of broadband Britain because we know that FTTC won’t manage it.

      What I see happening is fibre cabs being deployed bringing us something like ADSL3+ and a dead-end then, because BT aren’t going anywhere near the D-sides. The place we’re looking at moving to can get FTTC at a stonking 20Meg down which is a great improvement over the 250kbps ADSL rating. So for the first time that place can get a *current-gen* broadband offering. But it’s cabled anyway.

      So the cabinets get a great service. Sadly the customers are at the mercy of an old phone network (20 Meg down from a brand new fibre service, honestly, it’s hilarious). Once we get to that point, having wasted lots of money getting that far, the begging bowl will go back around again.

      By which time we’ve basically bought an old phone company a new broadband network. And I wonder why we’d do that and lock ourselves into one route and one provider and further entrench the same problems we’ve always had, the biggest one being no market.

    5. FibreFred says:

      “Fibre on demand is not ubiquitous and is not compatible with the aims of the superfast broadband project.”

      ? Can you explain

      “I thought so. So, fibre on demand will cost say £150 to install (say, 90 minutes or so @ 100/hour), then, much the same as a phone line installation,”

      No not the same as for most phone line installations we must assume copper is already at the pole and its that final 10-20meters that is provided. But once fibre is at a pole yes I would expect it would be the same in terms of time, roughly. So the most costly part is that first fibre customer on a pole.

      Not sure why you are obsessed with this phone company line. “Up to” is there because of a limitation of ADSL distance, it has nothing to do with BT or phone companies, its a safety net on a product that suffers from distance and other factors.

      Are you saying BT don’t know how to deploy non phone networks?, BT being one of the largest multinational telco’s there is?

    6. DTMark says:

      “Can you explain”

      Yes. The superfast broadband project was about delivering superfast broadband to homes, not cabinets or poles. People do not live in phone cabinets or on phone poles.

      “Not sure why you are obsessed with this phone company line. “Up to” is there because of a limitation of ADSL distance, it has nothing to do with BT or phone companies, its a safety net on a product that suffers from distance and other factors.”

      Both the question and the answer are in the same paragraph above. Personally, I’d love to see someone other than Hyperoptic and Virgin Media (list not exhaustive) take broadband – and I mean broadband, not internet connectivity – seriously.

      “Are you saying BT don’t know how to deploy non phone networks?, BT being one of the largest multinational telco’s there is?”

      From personal experience, even deploying a basic phone line is difficult for BT (3 out of 3 “troubled” installations), but then my experience is probably worse than others.

      For our village, we’ve contacted several Wi-Fi providers and an FTTP provider. I’m not even sure Openreach is actually ready to do this yet. It doesn’t seem to know a lot about Wi-Fi and to my knowledge has yet to do a sizeable FTTP deployment. Its experience, rather naturally, seems to relate to telephone lines and telephone services.

    7. FibreFred says:

      Your worst explanation yet I’m afraid, doesn’t warrant going further, no people don’t live in poles. Nor do people live in transformers or sub stations

  8. New_Londoner says:

    @DTMark
    Too many assertions masquerading as facts again.

    Quote: “this is absolutely crucial to whether or not BT’s offering can meet the aims of broadband Britain because we know that FTTC won’t manage it”. Do we know this? How? Evidence? It’s working fine for me, should give at least 40Mbps on lines up to 1km, which covers around 90% of us. Or over 100Mbps for 75% of us. And that’s with Profile 17a, so not exactly pushing the limits of what is possible today.

    Quote: “we’ve basically bought …. A new network”. Deductions peddles this nonsense too. Absolute rubbish. With initiatives like BDUK all we are doing is paying some of the cost to encourage providers to invest their own funds to deploy in areas here they were not otherwise interested, thats all.

    Using Cornwall as an example, the public sector is only paying approx a third of the cost, so we’ve hardly bought a new network have we? And remember those on FTTC that want to can upgrade to FTTP from next year themselves, no need for more public money.

    1. Deduction says:

      quote”should give at least 40Mbps on lines up to 1km, which covers around 90% of us”

      That is absolute poppy cock, source for that complete and utter dribble please.

    2. Somerset says:

      Which bit are you questioning? The 90% or the 40M. Please quote the correct figures.

    3. DTMark says:

      How about the house I’m looking to move to. Estimate 20Meg down. Perfectly ordinary urban area, semi detached houses etc.

      It’s not a complete waste of money, since it gives a choice of two providers.

      That’s why we picked it; it’s cabled. If cable proves poor and isn’t able to perform thanks to congestion then although the phone line won’t be able to do superfast broadband, it can at least manage a current-gen service via FTTC.

      But – incompatible with the aims of the superfast broadband project, hardly NGA.

      It would seem that the property needs FTTP for that. Either the cab is too far away or the lines are too poor.

      Perhaps I just continue to be “unlucky” in my choice of locations; I get it – I’m one of that tiny fraction of users again it seems.

    4. DTMark says:

      Assumptions masquerading as facts eh? 🙂

      We can all manipulate statistics to prove any point. However the workings for the result are all down below, so we can argue about the nature of those assumptions.

      The document restates various assumptions when it produces DSL charts based on those theoretical maximums. Lab results, not real-world and that’s important here. The report is only concerned with the optimal, as it makes clear from the outset.

      Lots of problems in calculating an accurate number given that BT’s network is so ancient and mixed-metal. It does seem to be the case that the aluminium lines drop performance by at least 40% or so and nobody seems to know how many of those there are.

      In addition not every house is served by a cabinet anyway. That’s going to vary of course by area but I’ll work with the overall average number.

      The remit is 90% in each area to get superfast broadband, so in theory then…

      100% of the cabs are enabled
      86% of the lines go via a cabinet – maximum penetration 86%

      86% is quite near to 90%. Each area will be different. Some exchanges may have close to 100% of lines via cabs, others less than 86%.

      Let’s not split hairs over that. However it does mean that every single other line from the exchange has to be capable of 25Mbps for FTTC to deliver superfast broadband by itself.

      75% of lines apparently have a line length of 650m or less – maximum penetration 64.5%

      From what I read, a 600m line (approx) can perform at anywhere between about 20Mbps and 50Mbps, perhaps a little more, with the newer profile.

      Current users report wildly differing speeds which is hardly surprising given the age of the network and the mixed metals in use. Same with ADSL, and especially ADSL2+ as more demands are made on ancient equipment with some lines needing to drop back to ADSL2 mode because of instability.

      This is what makes estimates so tricky when trying to implement modern broadband with very old circuitry which is something of an unknown quantity.

      I suggest the wide variations will be factors of line quality and crosstalk. The report looks at theoretical maximums, but, we’re not looking to theoretically implement superfast broadband, so we need to work with what we have.

      In this area, I think some lines are probably aluminium given that only 30% of them sync at the “correct” ADSL rate so the percentage of achieved sync rate versus theoretical is only 55% with ADSL, and VDSL is even more sensitive to poor lines.

      The document does not deal with this at all and makes the assumption that lines are 0.5mm copper “a typical cable”. But they’re not all 0.5mm and they’re not all copper.

      This will be why reported speeds with FTTC are anywhere between 0Mbps (e.g. line is too long or too poor) and 76Mbps. it would also be why some only get about half the speed they were promised -the Digital Region has experienced this as have Infinity customers. This supports my assertion that even BT aren’t really sure which lines are made of what.

      Let’s assume this area has very poor quality lines and is a worst case example.

      Suggestion: overall, 15% of lines are partly or wholly aluminium or otherwise “sub-optimal” (for VDSL) – maximum penetration 54.8%

      Another assumption – all crosstalk can be mitigated/avoided. That is theoretical only and a possible future development. It does not appear to be part of the “offer” at this stage.

      Even that 54.8% looks in jeopardy now.

      The document also makes it clear that self-install would not be an option.
      Since I think it likely that will be pursued this will certainly reduce that 54.8% above down still further because of internal old GPO wiring, star configurations and so on. The idea that a modern broadband service can be supplied over old star configurations with inline GPO splitter boxes and perform at anywhere near the capacities in the report seems highly improbable.

      So it would appear to me that FTTC could potentially provide superfast broadband to perhaps about half the people in an “average” area. Not bad for such an old network, but not NGA, not compatible.

      As an example, Rutland have tendered BT to provide faster broadband. But, not superfast broadband from what I can see. The word appears precisely zero times on the Rutland news article about the project, simply quoting “up to” speeds.
      If the aspirations of the project are to be met, Rutland will then potentially have a superfast broadband project to undertake once BT is finished and the money has already been used up.

      The other thing that amuses me is “what’s possible in the future”. Excuse me, this is a company asking for taxpayer’s money and it hasn’t worked this out yet? The arrogance is quite astonishing, and implies that BT rather expected not to have to work for this money at all.

      The superfast broadband project is now, so we have to work with what’s on offer now. BT have had decades to work at this now hopelessly overdue development. The “offer” doesn’t appear to be “ready” yet.

      It’s all so marginal, isn’t it. FTTC has a part to play, but as for it alone providing ubiquitous superfast broadband or meeting the aspirations of the broadband project, I suspect nowhere near even if every cabinet in the whole country had fibre laid. And that’s not the plan either.

      Lots of assumptions on all sides – including that document -but that 90% looks like pie in the sky to me. I’ll be away for a couple of days so I’ll leave you lot to quibble with those assumptions and see if we can get nearer than “somewhere between about 50% and 90%”.

    5. New_Londoner says:

      @DTMark
      Interesting points. However, to be clear, the Ofcome report cited is helpful in showing the distribution of line lengths from cabinets. I would not use it to understand likely broadband performance however given its age.

      There are, as you know, other reports which do show the performance of, for example FTTC using Profile 17a and vectoring to deliver broadband with downstream speeds of 40Mbps+ at up to around 1km. And significantly faster at shorter distances.

      Profile 30a would see speeds of up to 20Mbps were it to be introduced. In addition, I believe you can now see speeds of > 1Gbps in the labs, but not sure over what distances though so its unclear what implications this may have in the real world.

    6. New_Londoner says:

      ^^^^ Profile 30a at up to 200Mbps (not 20Mbps)!

  9. Deduction says:

    Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet. I can show thats not true (like i show any remarks you or you other IDs make aint true) but i want you to make yourself look stupid (For the 3rd time on this story) again first.

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Still going on with your multi-ID delusion, how very boring. And ironic to see you of all people asking for sources for data given you’re history of constantly spouting all sorts of nonsense and either not backing it up with data, or providing links to material that state the exact opposite of your assertion, showing you dont understand what you’re talking about (as if we needed proof!).

      Anyway, the source is Ofcom. If I can be bothered I may even look it up for you and post a link a little later, given your search skills have been shown to be a little lacking.

    2. New_Londoner says:

      Thanks Fred.

      @Deduction
      Figure 4, page 4 is the graph showing ~ 90% of us are within 1km of a cabinet. A shame when the facts are (yet again) at odds with your more far- fetched comments.

    3. FibreFred says:

      Looking forward to you usual goalpost shift 😉

    4. Deduction says:

      LMFAO an independant bunch of dribble from 2008…… I dont need to shift the goal posts LMAO

    5. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Excellent, looks like we now agree that 90% of us are within 1km of a cabinet then. Obviously no issue with the date of the report as we all know of course that this sort of infrastructure (street cabinets) does not change that much don’t we?

    6. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Now about your post, quote “Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet. I can show thats not true ….”

      Oh dear.

    7. FibreFred says:

      Deduction, you are indeed the man. Even in the face of facts its still not enough. So.. now you have been proved wrong and it is 90%

    8. Somerset says:

      ‘ I can show that’s not true’ Please do.

    9. Tom says:

      haha.. what a thread!

    10. Deduction says:

      What facts, some independent figures from 2008?

    11. Somerset says:

      Why are those numbers incorrect, what significant changes have there been since 2008?

    12. FibreFred says:

      Delusion, your wrong as usual, you’ve been proven wrong with facts and the more you post about it the more ridiculous you look

    13. FibreFred says:

      Independance ( a good thing ) and age do not make the report non factual. It’s an ofcom report. So now you have the evidence and it’s clearly hurting where is your proof it is not true , we are still waiting

    14. Deduction says:

      The only one that looks ridiculous is you with your multi personality disorder taking turns to post

    15. FibreFred says:

      We are all still waiting?

      So I can understand you disputing the Ofcom report because that would mean you admitting your a wrong which in your world does not compute. So whist this is amusing for many I can understand that.

      But, where is this “Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet. I can show thats not true”

      Please furnish us as promised, don’t fall back to your default trolling when it gets tough, back up your post

    16. Deduction says:

      The link shows a report that……

      1) Wasnt an ofcom report
      2) It was done in 2008 when FTTC CABINETS didnt exist so it in no way shows people are within 1Km of a FTTC cabinet.

    17. Somerset says:

      A report prepared for Ofcom. FTTC cabinets have to be close to existing cabinets so the report is valid.

    18. FibreFred says:

      Terrible follow up, but then what more can you say

    19. Deduction says:

      So it wasnt an ofcom report as your multi IDs claimed. It was a report done by a third party on their behalf.

      AND 2 a FTTC can be UPTO 500M away from current cabinets, such as the one literally just up the road from myself. (Original cabinet is one end of the road, new FTTC cabinet is the opposite end).

      Although id had thought situations like that were obvious, if everyone was within 1KM of a FTTC cabinet then BT surely would be able to guarantee more than a minimum 15Mb from their oh so wonderful UPTO 80+Mb tech.

      Apparently once agin i over estimated your intellect as is evident with your so called evidence of tech and where its situated from a period in time when such tech didnt even exist.

      I should be shocked but your stupidity is very predictable.

    20. Tom says:

      That is proof right there. (“I can show thats not true”).
      I am entirely convinced.

    21. Deduction says:

      Until you click the link to the full report which is a PDF file at the bottom of your link. Which somerset goes straight back to show its a report commissioned on behalf of ofcom from a third party. IE NOT an ofcom report. then again its becoming habit that you try to manipulate facts and dont read web pages in full.

    22. DTMark says:

      If it’s of any interest I did a bit of digging to see who prepared that report for OFCOM before I even read it, to check for conflicts of interest.

      The only thing I did come across was that the CEO of that group previously worked in partnership with BT nearly a decade ago, so I was satisfied with the source. The source has prepared other reports for OFCOM.

      What I’d hoped was a bit of a discussion about the technical aspects and probabilites.

      And I come back to find that school appears to be out.

      Cynical and facetious, perhaps. I’m talking about me. On the other hand I do try to understand the situation from all points of view including BT’s as I hope my posts over time have demonstrated, BT and others might disagree.

      I haven’t, as far as I know, resorted to playground behavour which benefits nobody.

      I feel sure I posted something like this before, and it stopped for a while.

    23. Somerset says:

      Tesco employess do not make Tesco biscuits. Same difference.

    24. Deduction says:

      Nope because the people that make the biscuits are a different company. When it comes to FTTC though last time i checked Openreach were part of the BT Group. SO nope not the same at all. BT have a monopoly Tesco dont.

    25. Somerset says:

      We are discussing the Ofcom report where they have commissioned an organisation to prepare it and where it clearly shows the distribution of line lengths. Do you have the information to disprove the statement?

      Are you sure you have an FTTC cabinet 500m away from the original cabinet, sounds unlikely, please provide the postcode.

    26. FibreFred says:

      Deduction
      June 23, 2012 at 5:57 pm

      Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet. I can show thats not true (like i show any remarks you or you other IDs make aint true) ”

      And still… we wait

    27. Deduction says:

      Dunno what YOU are waiting for nobody else is waiting for anything, they have long laughed at your 2008 figures.

    28. Tom says:

      “nobody else is waiting for anything, they have long laughed at your 2008 figures.”

      Very authorative. Shame I also want to see you showing everyone that the 90% statistic isn’t true.
      As noted somewhere else, cabinets don’t tend to move much so the argument that it is from 2008 doesn’t mean much.

      “I can show thats not true”
      Provide then! Boring and pointless otherwise.

    29. Tom says:

      Whoops, type – authorative = authoritative.

    30. FibreFred says:

      @Delusion

      “Dunno what YOU are waiting for nobody else is waiting for anything”

      But they are, read what has been posted, multiple people are waiting for that info, please provide it.

      Oh hang on a minute I’ve just consulted the troll output generator to see what you’ll say next and got:-

      “NO MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE NOT WAITING ON FOR INFO, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON YOU MULTI-ID FOOL!”

      Was that close?

    31. Deduction says:

      Im glad you are acknowledging your mental problem finally.

    32. Tom says:

      Nice avoiding of your offer:
      “I can show thats not true”
      Provide then! Boring and pointless otherwise.

    33. Deduction says:

      Those 2008 figures are meaningless, Fibre cabinets were not around back then, in addition they can not be used to show 90% people live within 1km of a fibre cabinet. As i stated up the road from me they are either end of the road (about 500 metres) im not lying either, ofcom thereself (NOT SOME INDEPENDANT HALF WIT REPORT) confirm FTTC can be installed hundreds of metres away…..
      http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/bbspeeds2011/bb-speeds-may2011.pdf
      SEE PAGE 90

    34. Tom says:

      Either you have miss-read or you are being very tricky with your wording.
      Yes they are “confirm they are hundreds of meters away”. The full segment in the report is “The street cabinet is usually located only a few hundred metres from the _subscriber premises._”

      You are going on about the distance between the cabinet and the DSLAM. The pdf page you pointed to is about the cabinet to customer distance.

      This argument is now way too convoluted from the simple “go on, as promised, prove that the 90% figure is wrong with facts not hearsay” that it’s pretty tedious attempting to coax this information out of you. I bet Mark is loving the increase in page view stats that your inane drivel brings.

    35. Tom says:

      “Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet.”
      Questioning is fine… thinking about it – any distance from the cabinet to the dslam increases the length on the line so does increase the line length to the dslam and potentially increases the chance that you are right. Thank you for posting a solid readable report / link.

      “I can show thats not true”.
      I (and others?) would still like you to come up with the solid statistics / proof that you claim you have. Or did you not mean to make that wild claim?

    36. Deduction says:

      Your 2008 report proves nothing and what i linked to actually mentions FTTC, 2008 there were no FTTC cabinets so as for solid evidence you lose that round, i dont need to prove anything further.

    37. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Quote “Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1km of a cabinet”

      Note it clearly says cabinet, not “FTTC cabinet” [sic] or DSLAM. The report published by Ofcom shows that approx 90% of us are within 1km of a cabinet.

      Fair enough if you want to dispute whether 90% of us are within 1km of DSLAM as well, for what its worth I’d agree with you. However that was not the point disputed by you originally so let’s deal with that one first. You were going to post the necessary evidence I believe.

    38. Deduction says:

      Glad you finally see your report does not give an indication of distance to a FTTC cabinet. Trying to be pedantic and nit pic when the conversation was clearly about FTTC cabinets just shows what an idiot you are.

    39. Deduction says:

      PS if you want to continue to be a pedantic idiot then we better analyse your original poppy cock remark…….
      “should give at least 40Mbps on LINES up to 1km, which covers around 90% of us.”

      Really 40Mbps on ANY LINES IS IT. Im sure those without a FTTC but whos LINE IS SHORTER THAN 1Km would love to know how its gonna get 40Mbps.

      Go ahead clarify your original remark now. As obviously tyou want to question myself and what “technology” was being discussed.

    40. Somerset says:

      The vast majority of FTTC cabinets are within approx 10m of the existing one. I believe there is a technical limit.

    41. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      You said you could prove that 90% of us do not live within 1km of a cabinet. You have been provided with clear evidence that this is in fact the case and are now trying to shift the goalposts, your standard tactic (usually followed by personal insults, multi-id acusations etc).

      The reason for pointing out that 90% of us are within 1km of a cabinet is that 90% of us would then benefit from 40Mbps+ performance from FTTC should a DSLAM be instaled by each of those cabinets (assuming Profile 17a and vectoring). That was the context of teh original comment about the 90% which you clerly stated was wrong and that you could disprove.

      Its clear you were mistaken with this comment, let’s put it aside and move on rather than try to suggest you actually meant to dispute something entirely different (which was not actually claimed in the first place).

    42. Deduction says:

      NO im not shifting any goal posts ive link to show its not a few feet. If anyones shifting goal posts and trying to be clever its you with your lines 1Km and under can get 40Mbps…. Which is nonsense.

    43. New_Londoner says:

      @|Deductoin
      SO definitely no “proof” that 90% of us don’t live within 1km of a cabinet then?

      As you’ve added a new question, no doubt you have proof that Profile 17a + vectoring can’t in fact deliver 40Mbps at 1km? Despite previous posts showing test results indicating that it can?

      Or is this yet another unsubstantiated claim?

    44. Deduction says:

      1) Once again ive already linked to evidence you refuse to read.
      2) You said ALL LINES can get 40Mbps, not just FTTC ones. <<< In other words you talked cack and are back peddling.

    45. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Petty attempts at pedentry get you nowhere, just make you look puerile. You’ve made a mistake, be mature enough to admit it.

    46. Deduction says:

      What the hell is pedentry? Hopefully its where a dentist welds your idiot gob shut?

    47. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      An interesting, new tactic. You are now resorting to being a pedant to avoid dealing with the actual issue, which in this case is your inability to back up your comments with actual evidence, despite claiming previously that you could.

      As the report published by Ofcom clearly shows, around 90% of us do live within 1km of a cabinet, so could see speeds of 40Mbps or highdr over FTTC using profile 17a and vectoring. To avoid yet more unnecessary pedantic comments, obviously this will require installation of the necessay equipment at both ends of each line to deliver the service, including but not limited to the DSLAM, VDSL modem etc.

      You suggested on 23rd June that you could prove that 90% of us do not live within 1km of a cabinet – “Im questioning the fact 90% are within 1Km of a cabinet. I can show thats not true….”. Go on then, proof please.

    48. Deduction says:

      Not a new tactic at all, just wondering what the hell you are on about as usual, because it makes no sense….

      I gather it was an attempt at an insult but you can not even get that right

      Again may i ask what is pedentry? Something else you have no doubt dreamed up is a real thing in your tiny little mind eh?

    49. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      In other words, once again, behind the bluster you don’t actually have any evidence to point to as you made it up in the first lpace. Shame, however the truth comes out in the end.

  10. Bob says:

    What is needed is a second wholesale network to provide real competition to BT.

    At present the government isd going don the road with BDUK of provide lots of little bespoke networks that are very costly and have little benefit. It is a similar approach to what was done with Cable and that did not work

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Bob
      You and DTMark keep proposing construction of something, neither has yet indicated how it will be funded. Do you have a backer or is it just an idea? Important to know as the BDUK process suggests there are very few companies interested in investing large sums across the country nd the government has made it plain it’s own funds won’t stretch anywhere close to the amount needed (even if state aid rules would permit it, which they not).

      So how will this be funded?

    2. Somerset says:

      VM cover 50% of the population, they could wholesale.

    3. DTMark says:

      “What is needed is a second wholesale network to provide real competition to BT.”

      What is needed is an ubiquitous, capable, extensible broadband network. There are currently no plans to deliver anything like this.

      Actually, in various mini-essays on here, I have indicated how I’d go about this at a high level. And, actually, what I indicated would in all probability leave BT as the largest and most significant player anyway. Any sensible solution to develop the market so desperately needed would only work if the status quo were not changed overnight, but rather, allowed providers to flourish based on future actions and performance.

      Although I spend more time on here than I should (once we’re back in a cabled area I’ll just go back to having broadband and forget BT even exists for another decade) I don’t have the time or the inclination to do the Government’s and BDUK’s job for them.

      I suggest they go back to the objectives and remit, and compare that with how it’s going. I suspect they will find a rather large gap somewhere between aspirations and likely delivery which would, in most scenarios, prompt a rather serious analysis, and a change of course.

    4. Deduction says:

      Indeed VM could wholesale……… Id be all in favour of that if they their fibre product also had a government handout of millions to get it off the ground.

      Unfortunately it didnt so they have no reason to wholesale anything.

    5. FibreFred says:

      Weren’t BT wholesaling before these handouts (most of which are yet to be actually handed out)

      Wholesale should be based on SMP, we just need Ofcom to rightly classify Virgin as having SMP which everyone knows they have

    6. Deduction says:

      Yep they were, wholesaling a product whos infrastructure was entirely funded by the tax payer.

    7. Somerset says:

      And then bought by shareholders.

    8. Deduction says:

      What difference does that make its infrastructure the tax payer funded not a shareholder.

    9. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Stating the obvious, surely you understand that when we sold BT in the 1980s we got what we believed to be a fair price from its new shareholders. In other words we got our money back, or as much as anyone was prepared to give us.

      Since then the new shareholders have invested £bns which thankfully we taxpayers have not had to fund. The only reason we may be giving some money to BT and others now via BDUK is to incentivise them to invest in superfast broadband in areas they believe to be uneconomic.

      Not sure why we’d criticise any company for responding to tenders that we’ve initiated? Surely we want some companies to respond, or why did we bother with the tenders?

      If your point is that the most rural areas get by without mains water, mains electricity, mains gas etc, so why should we pay for them to get broadband then fair enough. That’s a reasonable debate to have.

      Perhaps you could be kind enough to spell out what your real objection is, rather than keep coming up with (mainly foundationless) arguments.

    10. Somerset says:

      ‘entirely funded’. Broadband equipment was installed after privatisation so paid for by customers and shareholders.

    11. Deduction says:

      I said infrastructure not equipment. Copper wires and poles were paid for by the tax payer, not a shareholder……. Oh and good to see no pension scamming for them today also isnt it LOL

    12. Somerset says:

      The shareholders bought them from the taxpayer during the last century.

    13. Deduction says:

      And the tax payer originally bought the infrastructure, glad you agree and can not deny that.

    14. Gadget says:

      I don’t think anyone is arguing that the taxpayer originally funded GPO/BT right up to the point where it was sold – after not only did it have to find its own sources of funding but the Government,on behalf of the taxpayer, got the money raised from the sale.

      So the taxpayer funded the infrastructure upto privatisation then that was sold as part of the business to the shareholders who continued to invest in infrastructure.

      So Deduction’s statement above that it was “wholesaling a product whos infrastructure was entirely funded by the tax payer” is simply not true because a) additional infrstructure has been provided after privatisation so it cannot be entirely the old pre-privatisation kit and b) after it was sold whoever provided it is irrelevant as it now belongs to the new owners.

    15. Deduction says:

      Oh christ what colour pill did you pop to wake up that alias?

    16. DTMark says:

      @FibreFred

      “Wholesale should be based on SMP, we just need Ofcom to rightly classify Virgin as having SMP which everyone knows they have”

      You see, this is where I completely disagree with you.

      If we set this up correctly, which is to say it’s a market driven solution, then I don’t see any reason why BT should be obligated to share anything with anyone and the same is true for Virgin.

      Companies should be either public or private, not some weird hybrid mix with a dozen different oars being stuck in trying to steer one boat.

      If BT did not have an infrastructural monopoly, it would not need to be regulated. It would not have to share. Finally, it could actually sink or swim on its own merits, and have freedom to innovate if it wished to knowing the ROI is there.

      And to throw it back at you from BT’s perspective, I completely understand the resentment that BT shareholders must feel about the situation. The resentment that Virgin Media probably has. And Rutland Telecom. And so on the list goes. This setup just isn’t working well for anyone, least of all the customers.

      I find it hard to believe that some good people round a table with the government and BDUK truly cannot find it within themselves to come up with a workable solution, but then that might involve more government funding than is on the table.

      Eyes to the government then.

  11. Bob says:

    VM do not have significant market power under the EU definition. VM are also making a loss. They make a small operating profit but when the accumulated debt is taking into acccount the make a loss.

    VM in conjunction with the Open Network Consortium offered to provided an Open Network provided they received a significant proportion of the BDUK funding. BDUK though gave the money to the LA’s who gave it mainly to BT

    1. FibreFred says:

      “VM in conjunction with the Open Network Consortium offered to provided an Open Network provided they received a significant proportion of the BDUK funding”

      Its was actually all of the funding, every penny. Which was never going to happen and they knew it, great sound bites in the press but… so far nothing. Fuji have done nothing more than a trial on a street or two. If they were serious (they obviously aren’t) they’d have cracked on regardless

    2. Deduction says:

      WHY? BT didnt start their roll out at all until the government promised a set amount.

    3. Somerset says:

      What amount did the government promise and when was that? Links please.

    4. FibreFred says:

      Evidence of not starting rollout until funding was promised?

    5. Deduction says:

      Evidence it wasnt seeing as you were the one that started with the claims

    6. FibreFred says:

      Hahahahaahah 🙂 That is just to extend what they had already STARTED!!!!

      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/03/23/bt-reveals-more-fibre-optic-uk-broadband-rollout-plans.html

      They started in 2009!!!

      And then http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/03/30/bt-reveal-303-new-uk-locations-for-its-next-gen-fttc-broadband-rollout.html

      All prior to asking to extend up to 90%

      Oh dear your not having a good run are you?

      And it was your claim just read above, happy to put you right again though

    7. Deduction says:

      NO FTTC installs took place before 2010……… Link to them if they did.

    8. Somerset says:

      The government funding is for areas (cabinets etc.) beyond those which BT and VM are self funding to increase coverage beyond the 66% up to 90%.

    9. FibreFred says:

      He doesn’t/doesn’t want to understand Somerset. Seems straightforward to others though

    10. FibreFred says:

      “NO FTTC installs took place before 2010……… Link to them if they did.”

      Yet… they did http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4011-aaisp-connects-first-business-on-bt-fibre-to-the-cabinet-pilot.html

      Another fail

    11. Deduction says:

      1 No its not Somerset explain why Iwade paid for their cabinets if thats the case
      2 That fibre install if you click the link within that story was a trial scheme. So yep another fail…. On your part.

    12. FibreFred says:

      I knew you’d cry “trial” you said there were no installs “Your words” evidently there were

    13. Deduction says:

      Oh very clever in that case if we want to include trials, BT were still slow as others did trials in 2008. Either way you still fail.

  12. Deduction says:

    Oh and stop being an idiot troll its really showing now ^^^^ within 5 mins of each other at gone 11 in the evening…… A likely story

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      You’re right, it is very odd for more than one person to be using the internet at a time. Extrodinary!

    2. Deduction says:

      It would be if it were more than a single person.

    3. Tom says:

      Somerset
      June 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm
      Deduction
      June 25, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      Going by your definition…. you are the same person as Somerset.
      You are such a boring and fail troll.

    4. Deduction says:

      Id respond if that insult made any sense, though anything relating to BE, such as yourself never makes sense. So im not shocked

  13. zemadeiran says:

    What a pa-lava!? 🙂

    So, what is the point of all this hot air? What has been achieved? Where the hell is my remote?

    1. Deduction says:

      There wasnt any point, all kicked off when a singular individual didnt like me pointing out more than one area of the country have told BT to take a hike and dont want their product.

      Its Probably worried it would affect the share price in some manner, though the latest pension shambles and them having to dream up a new way to pay their deficit is far more likely to.

      LOL (Waits for troll to go into full rage Multi ID mode bright red holding its breath as it multiposts)

    2. Deduction says:

      And still the troll posts with multi nicks and is in full back peddle mode.

    3. Tom says:

      Crap like this didn’t happen before you arrived. Re-think who the troll may be.

    4. Tom says:

      If you _were_ here before then your previous personality was fine; the problems only started in your “Deduction” form. Please revert back to the more moderate personality.

  14. Delete all comments? says:

    ^^^ LOL gonna be interesting
    Even more priceless
    YOU WRONG AGAIN
    not a TOWN you fool!
    more meaningless turd
    Opps dumbo…….
    i can make you look an idiot again.
    before you open your gob for once.
    I hope thats not what you are trying to say LOL
    t its just you are too stupid
    you are not worthy
    ill stand by mine that you are an idiot
    is speaking nonsense
    That must really annoy you LMFAO
    That is absolute poppy cock, source for that complete and utter dribble please.
    i want you to make yourself look stupid
    LMFAO an independant bunch of dribble from 2008
    The only one that looks ridiculous is you with your multi personality disorder taking turns to post
    once agin i over estimated your intellect
    I should be shocked but your stupidity is very predictable.
    Im glad you are acknowledging your mental problem finally.
    just shows what an idiot you are
    you talked cack
    Hopefully its where a dentist welds your idiot gob shut?
    Oh and good to see no pension scamming for them today also isnt it LOL
    Oh christ what colour pill did you pop to wake up that alias?
    Oh and stop being an idiot troll its really showing now
    LOL (Waits for troll to go into full rage Multi ID mode bright red holding its breath as it multiposts)
    And still the troll posts with multi nicks and is in full back peddle mode.
    How do you know how long ive been here? Psychic now are you?
    I suggest you toddle off back to the BE IRC room, and feel superior through stupidity in that.

  15. Yep and follow it up with deleting these... says:

    You must have a short memory

    In much the same way that you’ve been unable to substantiate your equally wild (some might say deluded) claims

    I suggest you Google before putting your foot in your mouth again?

    Your worst explanation yet I’m afraid, doesn’t warrant going further, no people don’t live in poles

    @DTMark Too many assertions masquerading as facts again

    you’re history of constantly spouting all sorts of nonsense

    A shame when the facts are (yet again) at odds with your more far- fetched comments

    Looking forward to you usual goalpost shift

    Delusion, your wrong as usual, you’ve been proven wrong with facts and the more you post about it the more ridiculous you look

    Oh hang on a minute I’ve just consulted the troll output generator to see what you’ll say next and got:-

    just make you look puerile

    Oh dear your not having a good run are you?

    You are such a boring and fail troll

    Crap like this didn’t happen before you arrived.

    Funny that a person that speaks as they were spoken to!!! Ironically the person that likes to dish it out but not take it crys like a baby. My conclusion for them and their hiding behind proxies and multiple names is grow the hell up.

  16. Deduction says:

    The funniest remark of all those they listed and want removed is the one about
    BTs pension scam in the toilet… No rules against a person taking pleasure in that fact.

    Shows to the world why it (would say he or she but hard to know if they are male or female the amount of multi nick posting they do) defends BT.

    A sad individual that is hear to do nothing more than annoy people and then complain about it.

  17. Bob says:

    I see they are still touting the profile 17a as a magic solution to all the problems. It is nothing of the sort. If you have a basic twisted pair copper cable you get crosstalk and noise all that the profile does is use bandwith to avoid the noise but at the expense of bandwidth

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Bob
      Unless of course you add in vectoring to remove the crosstalk, allowing you to get higher bandwidth at longer distances.

    2. Deduction says:

      Keeps blabbering on about vectoring also even though that has ALSO been shown on MORE THAN ONE one occasion by MORE THAN ONE one person… Myself included that either stops cross talk entirely or does nothing at all to a line with too much of it. It doesnt “reduce” cross talk levels, either stops it entirely or doesnt.

      It bashes on about “mythical” speeds FTTC can do and nonsense about profiles which will make no difference because the further from the cabinet the more speed drops… As “theoretical” rates go up the more speed is lost the further from the cabinet. THAT HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN TO IT NUMEROUS TIMES.

      No matter how many times you show it has no clue what it is on about it demands evidence it has no idea.

      It is obvious it is the same person, all it does is come on question people persistently and defend BT, that is all they do.

      Go through every single story, half the time their opening comment is not even related to the story but a direct communication to an individual they disagree with.

      Then then go running to MarkJ once they have stirred up trouble complaining about the responses they get back to their persistent pestering of people and their inability to just give their opinion on the news item. Maybe it should learn how to address people if it wants them to be reasonable in a conversation.

    3. Deduction says:

      LMAO ironic just as i was typing that how predictable its latest nonsense would be.

    4. Deduction says:

      @BOB

      A prime example being Feb this year…
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/03/fttc-superfast-broadband-isp-technology-could-reach-over-98-of-uk-homes.html

      Oh the irony… Repeats from a few seconds ago…
      No matter how many times you show it has no clue what it is on about it demands evidence it has no idea.

      It is obvious it is the same person, all it does is come on question people persistently and defend BT, that is all they do.

      It must be trolling no one person can be as stupid as they act.

    5. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Your point about vectoring makes no sense. Quote ” either stops cross talk entirely or does nothing at all to a line with too much of it. It doesnt “reduce” cross talk levels, either stops it entirely or doesnt.”

      My comment “Unless of course you add in vectoring to remove the crosstalk, allowing you to get higher bandwidth at longer distances.”

      So you are now suggesting “removes” does not mean the same as “stops” in the context each was used? How very odd.

      Unlike you, I have provided links to evidence to back up statements, including plenty to show the impact vectoring has on reach and speed. Another poster has provided a link to a report published by Ofcom that shows around 90% of us live within 1km of a cabinet.

      You on the other hand have failed over several months to provide evidence that public money has funded every FTTC/P deployment to date. You have also failed to provide evidence back up your claim that 90% of us don’t live within 1km of a cabinet.

      So basically you have strong opinions but no evidence to base them on. Perhaps you are or should be a politician!

    6. Deduction says:

      Oh so now you want to try to be clever and let me make you look dumb as a rock again?

      FINE……
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/01/12/cbi-lobbies-uk-government-to-expand-its-broadband-ambitions.html#comment27

      Oh now what did you say there??????????

      Want me to go back to november and december last year when you were still spouting the same utter cack.

      Heres a idea GET THE F&*k OFF THIS SITE see others that persistently show you are wrong as Bob DTmark, myself and others have done with your claims for MORE THAN half a year can all get back to talking common sense.

      IDIOT!

    7. Deduction says:

      Oh and as that has obviously now sent you into a rage complaining to MARKJ before he gets happy with the delete button due to you probably pestering him as i type id remind him and yoou of what i said 6 months ago….

      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/01/12/cbi-lobbies-uk-government-to-expand-its-broadband-ambitions.html#comment33

      200Mb and vectoring…….. 2 things that still dont exist and 2 things you SIX WHOLE MONTHS ON are still are blabbering nonsensical rubbish about IN THIS VERY NEWS ITEM.

      Were you a scratched record or a parrot in a previous life???

      We may as well all debate if Scotty will ever be able to beam us all up, if we are going to indulge in your fantasies of 200Mb with vectoring and vectoring magically “REDUCES” cross talk rather than THE FACTS IS does nothing or “ELIMINATES” it entirely.

      Speaking of which that still is ultimately what needs doing…. You and your repeating of technology that doesnt exist in every news item ELIMINATING from this site.

    8. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Let’s not forget you previously doubted Profile 17a too.

      Oh, and whether there was a requirement for open access / wholesaling if bidding for public funds via BDUK etc.

      Not forgetting your view that public funds had contributed to deployment of FTTC/P in every location across the UK by BT

      Or your opinion that around 90% of us don’t in fact live within 1km of a cabinet.

      Or that it’s entirely feasible to bury the FTTC DSLAMs in holes under the pavements of Kensington, ignoring the existance of all the other services like mains electrity, mains water, sewerage, cable etc.

      Best not refer back to previous claims then, eh.

    9. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Quote “200Mb and vectoring…….. 2 things that still dont exist ”

      Not correct, see the ITU for the published standards, manufacturers for performance reports. Neither has been deployed in the UK, but definitely not true to claim that they don’t exist.

    10. Deduction says:

      Oh making lists are we………

      1) you were wrong about scotlands funding
      2) Wrong about funding in Essex
      3) Wrong about profiles, Wrong about vectoring (Point to FTTC BT based product i can buy with this mythical vectoring)
      5) 200Mb services do not exist

      Id carry on but unfortunately you are a waste of space that doesnt warrant it, and no before you ask you cant have links if you are too stupid to remember what you have previously said (which we have established already) thats your problem.

    11. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Sadly many of the things you feel I’m “wrong” about are more based on your incorrect interpretation of the facts (you really don’t understand EU state aid rules, roadworks etc), or your misinterpretation of what I actually said (I never did suggest FTTC/P was depoyed across 100% of Essex).

      And as posted above, vectoring and Profile 30a really do exist. You’ll note though that I never have suggested you can currently buy BT services that incorporate either.

      Very important if we’re to disagree, as we seem to on many things, that we disagree with what the other actually said, not with something that we’ve made up ourselves that they didn’t actually say.

  18. Deduction says:

    Read the linbk for a change you stupid idiot

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Presumably you mean the bit where I said “Vectoring – so clearly it does reduce crosstalk from something to nothing…”?

      Which seems much the same as my comment above “…add in vectoring to remove the crosstalk…”

      Ironically I note that you’re again resorting to implied crude language, just like that used in November which had to be deleted. Oh dear.

    2. Deduction says:

      I suggest you read the prior linked threads in their entirety and buy a dictionary as i suggest you do back then to learn what the word “reduce” means…….. Your stupidity i suspect can be “reduced” but it will still exist, rather than be “Eliminated”.

      Good to see im also right that you are now running and crying about my comments. Pity you have to resort to that, cant win on your own so have to get help eh? Its just a shame you do not realise you need help in many other ways.

    3. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      No idea why you think I’ve asked MarkJ to delete anything you have posted here, I’m just pointing out that it happened in the story you linked to.

    4. Deduction says:

      Cos thats what you do and have admitted you do previously, want “proof” of that also do ya?

    5. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      No need to post links, why waste time. I’ve no problem being clear if I have complained, however this time that is not the case, even though your more base comments may well breach the site’s rules on the use of language.

  19. Deduction says:

    Ill also for clarification repeat what was stated in Jan…..

    @MarkJ, if you are going to listen to this clown any longer and censor myself…… Then i ask please also remove all his off topic nonsense which is basically every post as it mentions technology which is in no way applicable to this story of the UKs FTTC products in general that being 200Mb and vectoring, neither exist in this country and no announcements for either tech have been made.

    NOW SHALL I MOVE ON TO YOUR PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT BT FUNDING ESSEX ALTHOUGH IVE ALSO RECENTLY PROVEN THAT IN-ACCURATE ALSO?

    1. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Quote “NOW SHALL I MOVE ON TO YOUR PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT BT FUNDING ESSEX ALTHOUGH IVE ALSO RECENTLY PROVEN THAT IN-ACCURATE ALSO?”

      By all means, however make sure you move on to my actual comments and not your incorrect interpretation of them. If you can “prove” BT has not deployed FTTC/P to any of the more rural parts of Essex like Tendring then post away.

    2. Deduction says:

      My comments are always correct unlike you that doesnt understand what simple words like “reduce” and “eliminate” actually mean.

    3. New_Londoner says:

      @Deduction
      Lovely! So let’s agree then that I have at no point suggested “BT have funded Essex”, whatever that may mean, and move on.

      No need to “prove” I’m wrong about something I didn’t say, after all there are a lot of things I haven’t said that are also wrong. We could be here a long time if you were to have to prove each of those to be incorrect too!

  20. Delete all comments? says:

    Heres a idea **************

    Is that intelligent discussion?

    1. Deduction says:

      Fits the intellect of who it was addressed to.

    2. Delete all comments? says:

      Your language will probably result in comments being closed on ISPreview.

    3. Tom says:

      I have to say – that “GET THE [snip]” comment even took me by surprise. Seriously, calm down – accept other peoples view and, when making claims, back them up. Not doing so just ends up in exactly what we have here (and on multiple other news items).

      Also, thanks for the unwarranted insult aimed at me yesterday. Posing the question about who the trouble maker may be really didn’t need that kind of response.

    4. Deduction says:

      @Tom if the comment you are referring to is the one i think, that was more a dig at BE than yourself (IE how they write cheques their gob cant cash, though i admit it was also sharp in your direction). If you saw it as offensive towards yourself more than the company itself i apologise. It was more meant as sarcasm than offensive.

      @New_Londoner, at least post you nonsensical dribble about imaginary 200Mb products, imaginary vectoring and imaginary profiles in the right place. You have been talking about all that for over six months and still cant tell anyone where they can buy a FTTC product in this country that uses any of it.

      If it doesnt exist in this country and BT cant or dont provided it why the hell have you been droning on about it for OVER SIX MONTHS???

      Try talking about things that exist. Im sure we would all like a real lightsaber, but none of us repeat on and on about them for months at a time.

      If you actually spoke any sense at all about things that actually exist in a news item they are applicable to maybe, just maybe you wouldnt be treated like the fool you appear to be. Im not the only one thats noticed it now either.

  21. New_Londoner says:

    @Deduction
    Quote “200Mb and vectoring…….. 2 things that still dont exist ”

    Not correct, see the ITU for the published standards, manufacturers for performance reports. Neither has been deployed in the UK, but definitely not true to claim that they don’t exist.

    1. New_Londoner says:

      ^^^^ Ignore, posted in wrong place.

Comments are closed.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Vodafone £21.95 (*24.95)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £22.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £22.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: 12 Months of Norton 360
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Community Fibre £20.00 (*29.50)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Double Speed Boost
  • Virgin Media £25.00 (*51.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £25.00 (*28.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £29.00 (*49.00)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £29.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3296)
  2. BT (2957)
  3. Building Digital UK (1866)
  4. FTTC (1861)
  5. Politics (1850)
  6. Openreach (1772)
  7. Business (1614)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1397)
  9. Statistics (1366)
  10. FTTH (1361)
  11. 4G (1208)
  12. Fibre Optic (1137)
  13. Wireless Internet (1124)
  14. Virgin Media (1112)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1109)
  16. Vodafone (797)
  17. EE (797)
  18. TalkTalk (740)
  19. Sky Broadband (720)
  20. 5G (691)
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact