Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: iggy21uk on 16 June 2009, 17:07:17
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
-
50P A MONTH!!! I'll be destitute :(
-
>:( >:( >:( >:(FFS!
-
>:( >:( >:( >:(FFS!
....I see your FFS and raise it to TFC!!!!
-
so glad we no lopnger have a landline!!!
what a cheek of the government why should we have to pay for it!!!!
-
Broadband. Ha you lucky people. Try using dial up via an analogue modem for four years via the useless Telefonica (I am an uncaring monopoly)
varche
-
yeah but we dont get the sun like you do!!!!
cant have it all now!!
-
True Mr Pace but it gets very cold (have seen minus 10 on the car) in winter.
So, I will go away and weigh up the pros and cons!
yep better here with dial up (just)
-
lol :)
( that didnt take much thinking did it?!!)
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
For every action, there will always be an opposite reaction.
Government adds another 50p to my phone line rental every month, I add another invoice for £5 every month in to my tax returns.....simples.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
-
Voip is truely shite.....our fixed lines at work are all voip and now dont get used due to the lack of consistency in the call quality.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Well they are not going to upgrade the exchange/concentrator/mux unless the buisness case is present to support it now are they!
-
Voip is truely shite.....our fixed lines at work are all voip and now dont get used due to the lack of consistency in the call quality.
Ours at work work really well to be honest. Personally, I've kept on the meridian rather than the Cisco VoIP stuff due to lack of confidence in it.
I support some of the voice quality reporting servers, so do get to see the quality reports and thresholds for various companies, and its mostly really good.
I am a fairly big home user of proper VoIP (not Skype shite), and this is 'OK' considering where I call (often Canada). I think it is improving.
But it still has fundamental flaws, always will due to inherent IP weaknesses
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
None of them will do it becuase its commercial suicide!
BT have been better than most in getting decent speed broadband to many, but at the end of the day, its a private company who's out to make money for its shareholders.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
exactly!!!
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Well they are not going to upgrade the exchange/concentrator/mux unless the buisness case is present to support it now are they!
If the demand isn't there, then I can sympathise with not doing the upgrade because the majority obviously don't want it.
But to try & pass the cost on to me for something that isn't wanted in the first place, and then rent out the same crap bit of copper (twice over) thats been in the ground for the last 50 years....they can find another muppet for that.
-
I think some people are in a dream world....BT is a buisness, its there to make a profit for its share holders and every where there is a profit to be made they will upgrade the service.
No profit to be made and forget it.
Thats the ways of the capitalist world I am afraid
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Well they are not going to upgrade the exchange/concentrator/mux unless the buisness case is present to support it now are they!
If the demand isn't there, then I can sympathise with not doing the upgrade because the majority obviously don't want it.
But to try & pass the cost on to me for something that isn't wanted in the first place, and then rent out the same crap bit of copper (twice over) thats been in the ground for the last 50 years....they can find another muppet for that.
There not passing the cost on, the government has decided to put a policy in place to get broadband to all and in order to do that they need to subsidise the installation in order to get the buisness cases viable.
And that old copper (its well be steel actually) is not a one off fixed install cost, its has a maintenance over head and the major cost of which sits at the exchange end
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Well they are not going to upgrade the exchange/concentrator/mux unless the buisness case is present to support it now are they!
If the demand isn't there, then I can sympathise with not doing the upgrade because the majority obviously don't want it.
But to try & pass the cost on to me for something that isn't wanted in the first place, and then rent out the same crap bit of copper (twice over) thats been in the ground for the last 50 years....they can find another muppet for that.
Eh? at what point are they selling you the same physical line twice?
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
First off J, NO-ONE is "beloved".
I don't do loyalty or any other s*it, you either deliver the goods (in which case I pay), or you fail and you f*ckoff.
Virgin failed when they changed the rules, they got f*cked off.
Be/O2 are delivering what they say....so they stay until such times they get it wrong.
As for the others, none of them (except VM) have total control over where the feed ends up.....that's why they ain't being held accountable for the cost.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
First off J, NO-ONE is "beloved".
I don't do loyalty or any other s*it, you either deliver the goods (in which case I pay), or you fail and you f*ckoff.
Virgin failed when they changed the rules, they got f*cked off.
Be/O2 are delivering what they say....so they stay until such times they get it wrong.
As for the others, none of them (except VM) have total control over where the feed ends up.....that's why they ain't being held accountable for the cost.
They are wholesale LLU providers, and they chose only to put DSLAMs in where they will make money. No different to BT Wholesale :-/
-
I also know that some of the governemnt 'levy' will be used to roll out 3G services further to get broadband support....but then they dont understand how crap 3G is at braodband once you get a few users on it!
And VM have very little self owned Uk network.....just a bit of cable based install
-
I also know that some of the governemnt 'levy' will be used to roll out 3G services further to get broadband support....but then they dont understand how crap 3G is at braodband once you get a few users on it!
And VM have very little self owned Uk network.....just a bit of cable based install
I can confirm, though better than GPRS, even 3.5G (or whatever its called now) is pretty crap most of the time during the day.
-
I also know that some of the governemnt 'levy' will be used to roll out 3G services further to get broadband support....but then they dont understand how crap 3G is at braodband once you get a few users on it!
And VM have very little self owned Uk network.....just a bit of cable based install
I can confirm, though better than GPRS, even 3.5G (or whatever its called now) is pretty crap most of the time during the day.
Yep, '3.5G' is only some enhanced coding and fec!
-
I also know that some of the governemnt 'levy' will be used to roll out 3G services further to get broadband support....but then they dont understand how crap 3G is at braodband once you get a few users on it!
And VM have very little self owned Uk network.....just a bit of cable based install
a few days ago, WiMax started creeping back out of the woodwork again. I guess we got an early view of the report, so maybe that may be utilised as well.
-
On each invoice 10p Labour Government broadband tax, inc vat tax.
-
>:( >:( this will be another con like road tax,only a tiny percentage will go to upgrading the network >:( >:(
-
>:( >:( this will be another con like road tax,only a tiny percentage will go to upgrading the network >:( >:(
I think everyone already knows that ;)
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Sadly, its not BT/VM/AcmeTelco, its the bunch of gay incompitents in Westminster. BT/VM/AcmeTelecom will be the ones having to collect it.
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Sadly, its not BT/VM/AcmeTelco, its the bunch of gay incompitents in Westminster. BT/VM/AcmeTelecom will be the ones having to collect it.
Yes, you are right of course TB. ::) ::) More of our money going get wasted! >:(
-
True Mr Pace but it gets very cold (have seen minus 10 on the car) in winter.
So, I will go away and weigh up the pros and cons!
yep better here with dial up (just)
It would be better with crank handle or hamster running in a wheel than being here!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Is now a good time to say my MaxDSL (up to 8Mb) is synced at over 7Mb (3.5km line length) :D
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
....I have chosen and accepted a long time ago - however it's a bit rich that I'm only getting aroung .5 meg, 2.5 miles distant from the exchange.
Another stealth tax from the experts who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
....a kick up the backside Killer? - have you gone soft? The entire organisation should be bitch-slapped into the middle of next week - and then some.
A prime example of the bloated, money-grabbing shambles of an outfit that passes for an answer to our technological needs for the coming century.
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
None of them will do it becuase its commercial suicide!
BT have been better than most in getting decent speed broadband to many, but at the end of the day, its a private company who's out to make money for its shareholders.
....and there's the problem TB, that's why we are in the dark ages concerning this and that's where we will remain, as the bottom line will always be - shareholders before R&D and subscribers.
A prime example of everything that's bad about a monopoly business.
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Sadly, its not BT/VM/AcmeTelco, its the bunch of gay incompitents in Westminster. BT/VM/AcmeTelecom will be the ones having to collect it.
...indeed TB New Labour at its most cunning and disingenuous self.
-
I feel rather the better for that, thank you :y :y
-
Of course it is another daft tax on a lot of already poor pensioners with their fixed (lifeline) line.
I think the argument is well made that Britain needs universal broadband access and not just in the connurbations. How else will people be able to while away their unemployed hours? :) :)
Those pensioners will get scant benefit from it particularly if they aren't on the Internet.
I think Britain is reaping the rewards of the deregulation of the telecoms industry which showed a remarkable lack of forward planning. Bucks today beggar tomorrow.
varche
Still BT shares shot up 8% on the news so all is not lost!
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
None of them will do it becuase its commercial suicide!
BT have been better than most in getting decent speed broadband to many, but at the end of the day, its a private company who's out to make money for its shareholders.
....and there's the problem TB, that's why we are in the dark ages concerning this and that's where we will remain, as the bottom line will always be - shareholders before R&D and subscribers.
A prime example of everything that's bad about a monopoly business.
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government? I think we would still think ISDN was good if that was the case. The previous head honcho their, old Dutchboy, did wonders for UK broadband in fairness, putting it in significant areas at a loss. Remember, BT are still constrained by OFCOM, stiffling innovation. This constraint also makes them have to provide a lot of stuff at a loss in some cases, and not allow competitive pricing in others.
I know its nice to follow the sheppard and slag of BT, but they have done an awful lot to improve internet connectivity in the UK (probably made some mistakes along the way), and at a loss. Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?
Why pick on BT? Nobody is complaining about any of the other providers?
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
-
Can't help the rest of them, but Manta hatch. I still have a working "8 track" in the garage and a selection of tapes (Tangerine dream and the like). I'll send you them in 2015 if you pm me..
Mind you by then there will no doubt be a tax on what we listen to in the car anyway!
v
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
we can sing along to the static...
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
we can sing along to the static...
Pirate radio?
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
we can sing along to the static...
Pirate radio?
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
don't underestimate how much this is worth to the government
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Lol, BT have not done R&D for years!
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Lol, BT have not done R&D for years!
Actually they do, though not as much as hostorically, as they buy in a lot of standard stuff.
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Lol, BT have not done R&D for years!
Actually they do, though not as much as hostorically, as they buy in a lot of standard stuff.
Only on a custom software front.....the rest is background noise
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
You can either use CD-R media to play your fave tunes (be aware that CD-R media is alleged to f*ck a laser in a matter of weeks), or you play the government at their own game when you hand in your tax returns (they tax you 50p, you put in an invoice for £45).
Simple logistics really.
-
.....but if you are on PAYE ? :-/
-
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
They will shut it off when they say Martin, trust me on that one.
Your only regress is to play the c*nts at their own game and read the rule book before you show your hand ;)
-
.....but if you are on PAYE ? :-/
Then you take it up the a*se.
Sorry if that sounds like abandon ship, but I learnt a long time ago that taking 39 hours per week of crap (from some schmuck in a suit) wasn't going to make me money.
-
Goverment levy to pay for upgrade to the nations broadband
50p a month per fixed phone line.
Expect it will be plus vat so another tax hike. >:(
Will need to get my VOIP line fixed :)
And going to Swith off AM / FM transmitters by 2015
So what happens to the millions of car radios in our cars ?
we can sing along to the static...
Pirate radio?
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
don't underestimate how much this is worth to the government
Still think it is unworkable - no benefits to the listener (unlike DTTV), so doomed to fail
-
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
They will shut it off when they say Martin, trust me on that one.
Your only regress is to play the c*nts at their own game and read the rule book before you show your hand ;)
That is only 6 years and I don't know anyone with DAB.
People will move to PMPs and local radio will disappear
-
That is only 6 years and I don't know anyone with DAB.
I'm sure you know plenty of people who have Sky/Cable TV mate ;)
-
Can't help the rest of them, but Manta hatch. I still have a working "8 track" in the garage and a selection of tapes (Tangerine dream and the like). I'll send you them in 2015 if you pm me..
Mind you by then there will no doubt be a tax on what we listen to in the car anyway!
v
Hi Varche, the worse thing about 8 track is I am old to remeber seeing them, and travelling in my brothers mk2 Cortina and listening to one.
I am getting old.
Mike
-
Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
None of them will do it becuase its commercial suicide!
BT have been better than most in getting decent speed broadband to many, but at the end of the day, its a private company who's out to make money for its shareholders.
....and there's the problem TB, that's why we are in the dark ages concerning this and that's where we will remain, as the bottom line will always be - shareholders before R&D and subscribers.
A prime example of everything that's bad about a monopoly business.
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government? I think we would still think ISDN was good if that was the case. The previous head honcho their, old Dutchboy, did wonders for UK broadband in fairness, putting it in significant areas at a loss. Remember, BT are still constrained by OFCOM, stiffling innovation. This constraint also makes them have to provide a lot of stuff at a loss in some cases, and not allow competitive pricing in others.
Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?
Why pick on BT? Nobody is complaining about any of the other providers?
I know its nice to follow the sheppard and slag of BT, but they have done an awful lot to improve internet connectivity in the UK (probably made some mistakes along the way), and at a loss.
..........BT have been in the chair for some considerable time and we still have this confusing and erratic policy concerning broadband connectivity, if that isn't an indication of their lack of drive to establish a network second to none I don't know what is.
It seems to be the case that organisations such as BT won't get off their corporate arses until presented with the threat of competition and the subsequent loss of revenue.
Remember how they had their asses handed to them by Racal back in the early eighties when the two were developing the cellular network? Rather than developing the transmitter site profile in a way to give the best cover available, they simply used their existing inventory of property to site the cell towers thus losing out to Racal, in the race to provide the most widespread signal quality possible.
Another example of backward thinking, driven by financial parochialism and lack of imagination.
Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?
Competition. Had there been an absence of it I have no doubt that ISDN would still be considered to be an acceptable standard
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government?
Not entirely, but I think that the regulatory body should be able to have a greater say in how they conduct their day to day business and have the power to sanction them severely, when concern for shareholders overrode that of subscribers and continued development.
Whether an essential provision such as telecommunications should be entrusted in its entirety to a private body is worthy of continued argument. (As is the provision of energy and of transport)
In my view BT is an able enough sheppard and is quite adept on herding the flock of subscribers to impart an unreasonable amount, for what amounts to an adequate service at best
-
They won't shut off FM and AM - too many stations, too many radios, DAB is also rubbish
They will shut it off when they say Martin, trust me on that one.
Your only regress is to play the c*nts at their own game and read the rule book before you show your hand ;)
That is only 6 years and I don't know anyone with DAB.
People will move to PMPs and local radio will disappear
I had one about 10yrs ago, threw it away, bloody thing would stop working after around 6:30
-
Well I pay enough for BT phone line and broadband package, which must incorporate research & development within their costings, so I think it is a bloody cheek to expect me to pay even 50p per month......on principle! >:( >:(
Lol, BT have not done R&D for years!
Actually they do, though not as much as hostorically, as they buy in a lot of standard stuff.
Only on a custom software front.....the rest is background noise
Much more than software, they have their fingers in a lot of pies...
-
It seems to be the case that organisations such as BT won't get off their corporate arses until presented with the threat of competition and the subsequent loss of revenue.
Remember how they had their asses handed to them by Racal back in the early eighties when the two were developing the cellular network? Rather than developing the transmitter site profile in a way to give the best cover available, they simply used their existing inventory of property to site the cell towers thus losing out to Racal, in the race to provide the most widespread signal quality possible.
Another example of backward thinking, driven by financial parochialism and lack of imagination.
Loss of revenue? That shows a lack of business knowledge. They will do it, and have the resources and money to make it happen, then they can see a ROI for doing it. Rightly or wrongly, its a business, and its primary role is to make money.
As to Cellnet/Vodafone, who had the better strategy? Which one is alledged to have the best network in the UK? Which one is in the better financial position - although thats probably unfair, as BT flogged it off virtually debt free.
Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?
Competition. Had there been an absence of it I have no doubt that ISDN would still be considered to be an acceptable standard
Competition that is allow because BT sell it at a wholesale level to other companies. They could have kept it purely for their own businesses (remember, BT initially was not constrained by OFTEL for broadband). Many other countries do not have this, becuase the telco is state owned, and a monopoly.
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government?
Not entirely, but I think that the regulatory body should be able to have a greater say in how they conduct their day to day business and have the power to sanction them severely, when concern for shareholders overrode that of subscribers and continued development.
Whether an essential provision such as telecommunications should be entrusted in its entirety to a private body is worthy of continued argument. (As is the provision of energy and of transport)
In my view BT is an able enough Sheppard and is quite adept on herding the flock of subscribers to impart an unreasonable amount, for what amounts to an adequate service at best
OFTEL, then OFCOM have made a right balls up from the consumer point of view. Insisting some of BT's wholesale and retail prices are above a certain level has resulted in less choice for consumers, and not helped with competition outside of highly profitable areas.
BT ain't perfect - boy do I know that as I used to work their until 5yrs ago - but they have gone way beyond what they needed to (BT's only legal requirement is to provide acceptable voice to everyone who wants it, be it over dedicated pairs, concentrators, WB900s, DACS, passive fibre etc).
-
Thank you TB, your input is giving me much to think on :y :y
Loss of revenue? That shows a lack of business knowledge. They will do it, and have the resources and money to make it happen, then they can see a ROI for doing it. Rightly or wrongly, its a business, and its primary role is to make money.
... Has BT been altruistic in the disposal of its expertise for the sake of it alone I would suggest not? The desire has been the need to provide profit for the business and the shareholder and to solidify its position in the market. Yes, that’s what business does, but the integrity of this business is important in terms of the national interest and the requirement for aggressive development should not be left to those who consider profit to be the all encompassing requirement
As to Cellnet/Vodafone, who had the better strategy? Which one is alledged to have the best network in the UK? Which one is in the better financial position - although thats probably unfair, as BT flogged it off virtually debt free.
......Irrespective of the strategy, at the time of development BT had a telecom infrastructure in place. Did that fact put them in a position to offer the most practical and best conceived service, some would argue not? It took a small band of free thinkers to jolt them into action. Would that development have been as thorough and accomplished in the absence of such a stimulus, perhaps not?
OFTEL, then OFCOM have made a right balls up from the consumer point of view. Insisting some of BT's wholesale and retail prices are above a certain level has resulted in less choice for consumers, and not helped with competition outside of highly profitable areas.
.......The regulatory body should have the ammunition to ensure that the business is properly conducted, the fact that it seems to be lacking in the desire or expertise to accomplist that lies in its constituent elements and perhaps Westminster has a case to answer in that regard.
BT ain't perfect - boy do I know that as I used to work their until 5yrs ago - but they have gone way beyond what they needed to (BT's only legal requirement is to provide acceptable voice to everyone who wants it, be it over dedicated pairs, concentrators, WB900s, DACS, passive fibre etc)
......So why are they involved in the broadband market in that case – because there’s money to be made. Their marketing strategy reveals how important it is to them.
It still seems to me that it’s being done on the cheap. After all this time there still isn’t a high speed network available country wide and as BT is the incumbent, we are entitled ask, why not? For all the talk about the desire to have a fast network I still can only get .5meg on the line and I can see the exchange 2.5 miles distant.
Is the levy going to change this for me and those in a similar position, I don’t think so?
-
bt? useless going downhill fast .losing money everyday cutting jobs .trying to get there enginers to work six hour days including saturdays and sundays ?say no more! :-? >:(
-
bt? useless going downhill fast .losing money everyday cutting jobs .trying to get there enginers to work six hour days including saturdays and sundays ?say no more! :-? >:(
It's not just BT trying to save money at every corner, everybody is doing it at the moment.
-
[size=20]RIGHT![/size]
What's this "Levy" Sh1t ?
It's an Americanism for tax, that's what it is!
Yes, it's only 50p now, and, because it's classed as Levy is there a chance that it's subject to a taxation, then when it goes up, they'll get more tax on top.
It's just another way of the Goverment or what ever thay are supposed to do >:( clawing back some of the monies that they have agreed to hand out to BT towards 21 CN upgrades, because they've realised just how much it'll cost them in the long run, sorry Tony Blair, but this one is down to you, the current "Mob" are picking up the sh1t from it..
Levy, watch this word become an Great Bitainism very soon, it's a f'kin loophole I rekon ::)
DC
-
50p towards broadband, like all the road tax goes towards maintaining the roads, they're having a laugh.
-
It still seems to me that it’s being done on the cheap. After all this time there still isn’t a high speed network available country wide and as BT is the incumbent, we are entitled ask, why not? For all the talk about the desire to have a fast network I still can only get .5meg on the line and I can see the exchange 2.5 miles distant.
Is the levy going to change this for me and those in a similar position, I don’t think so?
BT has provided high speed internet a virtually all of its 5500 odd exchanges. Remember, many of these are unprofitable, and remember BT's only legally required to provide voice. So it has gone way beyond its call of duty.
The next step is to try to improve broadband speeds for those further away from exchanges. There are plenty of trials currently going on - FTTC, FTTP etc, not to mention the ADSL2 upgrades trying to get better speeds from the existing copper (mostly ::)) pairs. The FTTC/FTTP are massively expensive projects, and could never achieve full coverage, as no company could afford it, esp a company like BT who is actually losing money currently (a lot of these unprofitable upgrades were supposed to have government loans and grants, but I understand that these have not been forthcoming).
What I do find frustrating is that people choose to live in the arse end of nowhere, then complain about whichever large company provides a 'rural' service - eg, power cuts in storms becuase their leccy is overhead feed, councils not gritting their tiny lanes in snow, Tescos not opening a megastore just out of site over the next hill, mobile companies not providing full signal 3g coverage.
-
50p towards broadband, like all the road tax goes towards maintaining the roads, they're having a laugh.
Nail and Head, Mr Silver Surfer....
-
It still seems to me that it’s being done on the cheap. After all this time there still isn’t a high speed network available country wide and as BT is the incumbent, we are entitled ask, why not? For all the talk about the desire to have a fast network I still can only get .5meg on the line and I can see the exchange 2.5 miles distant.
Is the levy going to change this for me and those in a similar position, I don’t think so?
BT has provided high speed internet a virtually all of its 5500 odd exchanges. Remember, many of these are unprofitable, and remember BT's only legally required to provide voice. So it has gone way beyond its call of duty.
The next step is to try to improve broadband speeds for those further away from exchanges. There are plenty of trials currently going on - FTTC, FTTP etc, not to mention the ADSL2 upgrades trying to get better speeds from the existing copper (mostly ::)) pairs. The FTTC/FTTP are massively expensive projects, and could never achieve full coverage, as no company could afford it, esp a company like BT who is actually losing money currently (a lot of these unprofitable upgrades were supposed to have government loans and grants, but I understand that these have not been forthcoming).
What I do find frustrating is that people choose to live in the arse end of nowhere, then complain about whichever large company provides a 'rural' service - eg, power cuts in storms becuase their leccy is overhead feed, councils not gritting their tiny lanes in snow, Tescos not opening a megastore just out of site over the next hill, mobile companies not providing full signal 3g coverage.
......thank you for taking the time to engage me in this TB, it's much appreciated :y :y
That is the operative word TB, many of us have no choice in residing where we do – due to either obligation to duty or to family. It is necessary however, for a sensible demographic, to ensure that there is an even spread of populace throughout the country. This is even more important now that most cities and their conurbations are over loaded with people and property development. It would be quite wrong, and indeed impractical, to insist that everyone should reside within the curtilage of the city environment.
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
As long as the financial aspect is the over-riding factor in this, I can see no reason why BT would wish to push new technology.
For that reason alone any regulatory body having responsibility for such a concern as BT, must have the capability to ensure that not only is that business conducted in an appropriate and ordered fashion, but that the business model adopted ensures that development, and the application of the best available technology, is not deferred – or ignored - for reasons purely linked to the profitability factor.
That's why there must be robust regulation of such concerns as BT; the national interest must come before profit.
(and I would still like more than .5 meg if its at all possible)
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
-
For that reason alone any regulatory body having responsibility for such a concern as BT, must have the capability to ensure that not only is that business conducted in an appropriate and ordered fashion, but that the business model adopted ensures that development, and the application of the best available technology, is not deferred – or ignored - for reasons purely linked to the profitability factor.
Currently, the best would likely be dedicated FTTP. That would probably average a cost of in the region of £50k per line to retrofit. I believe their are something like 27m landlines. I'll leave you to work out the maths which show why no company (or government even), especially one that actually LOST money in the last year, could even begin to do that.
We have to put up with the crap thats already in the ground/air. If the attenuation is high due to the distance you are from the exchange (which if rural, has likely been then since before the war), well, that is 'choice' ;)
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
....forgive me TB but the analogy fails as the provision of up to date telecoms is a necessity the other is not :) :) :) I make this statement in the spirit of the preceeding emoticons. :y
I do agree with you that a wholly nationalised concern does not always mean the the end product will be all that it should, but at the very least, the legislature should retain the majority holding and ensure that due progression is made towards providing the best and most up to date product available.
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
....forgive me TB but the analogy fails as the provision of up to date telecoms is a necessity the other is not :) :) :) I make this statement in the spirit of the preceeding emoticons. :y
I do agree with you that a wholly nationalised concern does not always mean the the end product will be all that it should, but at the very least, the legislature should retain the majority holding and ensure that due progression is made towards providing the best and most up to date product available.
I think for many, a car is more essential than an Internet connection. Anyone who disagrees either lives in a city/town with public transport infrastructure, or really needs to get out into daylight once in a while ;D
An internet connection, whilst useful, is hardly a necessity for most.
If I couldn't drive, I would 'choose' to live somewhere that had a transport system I could use.
-
For that reason alone any regulatory body having responsibility for such a concern as BT, must have the capability to ensure that not only is that business conducted in an appropriate and ordered fashion, but that the business model adopted ensures that development, and the application of the best available technology, is not deferred – or ignored - for reasons purely linked to the profitability factor.
Currently, the best would likely be dedicated FTTP. That would probably average a cost of in the region of £50k per line to retrofit. I believe their are something like 27m landlines. I'll leave you to work out the maths which show why no company (or government even), especially one that actually LOST money in the last year, could even begin to do that.
We have to put up with the crap thats already in the ground/air. If the attenuation is high due to the distance you are from the exchange (which if rural, has likely been then since before the war), well, that is 'choice' ;)
......but surely there can an upgrade to a technology which is more advanced than copper wire but which lies within the domain of achievable gain against reasonable financial outlay when considered on a national basis?
Is the example of FTTP reasonable even though it would seen to be the best available?
My choice would be to return to London, but I'm stuck where I am ( for a variety of reasons ) on a .5 line, 2.5 miles from the exchange :y
-
For that reason alone any regulatory body having responsibility for such a concern as BT, must have the capability to ensure that not only is that business conducted in an appropriate and ordered fashion, but that the business model adopted ensures that development, and the application of the best available technology, is not deferred – or ignored - for reasons purely linked to the profitability factor.
Currently, the best would likely be dedicated FTTP. That would probably average a cost of in the region of £50k per line to retrofit. I believe their are something like 27m landlines. I'll leave you to work out the maths which show why no company (or government even), especially one that actually LOST money in the last year, could even begin to do that.
We have to put up with the crap thats already in the ground/air. If the attenuation is high due to the distance you are from the exchange (which if rural, has likely been then since before the war), well, that is 'choice' ;)
......but surely there can an upgrade to a technology which is more advanced than copper wire but which lies within the domain of achievable gain against reasonable financial outlay when considered on a national basis?
Is the example of FTTP reasonable even though it would seen to be the best available?
My choice would be to return to London, but I'm stuck where I am ( for a variety of reasons ) on a .5 line, 2.5 miles from the exchange :y
Any change of the copper (alledgedly :-X) pair would be within a stones through of the same cost, as the majority of that cost would be in road digging/wayleaves for laying the new cables. Thats the issue - we're all stuck with the crap thats in the ground/air ;)
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
....forgive me TB but the analogy fails as the provision of up to date telecoms is a necessity the other is not :) :) :) I make this statement in the spirit of the preceeding emoticons. :y
I do agree with you that a wholly nationalised concern does not always mean the the end product will be all that it should, but at the very least, the legislature should retain the majority holding and ensure that due progression is made towards providing the best and most up to date product available.
I think for many, a car is more essential than an Internet connection. Anyone who disagrees either lives in a city/town with public transport infrastructure, or really needs to get out into daylight once in a while ;D
An internet connection, whilst useful, is hardly a necessity for most.
If I couldn't drive, I would 'choose' to live somewhere that had a transport system I could use.
......thank you TB
In my view an up to date telecoms infrastructure means much more than access to the internet for domestic users, it's the facility the country uses to function.
Whilst a car is certainly vital for a lot of people, the provision of the best possible vehicle constrained by the most reasonable financial outlay is not a requirement which can be reasonably placed upon the leglislature - the provision of up to date telecoms, for whatever reason they're employed, is. :y
Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not :y
-
For that reason alone any regulatory body having responsibility for such a concern as BT, must have the capability to ensure that not only is that business conducted in an appropriate and ordered fashion, but that the business model adopted ensures that development, and the application of the best available technology, is not deferred – or ignored - for reasons purely linked to the profitability factor.
Currently, the best would likely be dedicated FTTP. That would probably average a cost of in the region of £50k per line to retrofit. I believe their are something like 27m landlines. I'll leave you to work out the maths which show why no company (or government even), especially one that actually LOST money in the last year, could even begin to do that.
We have to put up with the crap thats already in the ground/air. If the attenuation is high due to the distance you are from the exchange (which if rural, has likely been then since before the war), well, that is 'choice' ;)
......but surely there can an upgrade to a technology which is more advanced than copper wire but which lies within the domain of achievable gain against reasonable financial outlay when considered on a national basis?
Is the example of FTTP reasonable even though it would seen to be the best available?
My choice would be to return to London, but I'm stuck where I am ( for a variety of reasons ) on a .5 line, 2.5 miles from the exchange :y
Any change of the copper (alledgedly :-X) pair would be within a stones through of the same cost, as the majority of that cost would be in road digging/wayleaves for laying the new cables. Thats the issue - we're all stuck with the crap thats in the ground/air ;)
;D thank you TB, and I'm stuck with my .5 ;D :y
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
....forgive me TB but the analogy fails as the provision of up to date telecoms is a necessity the other is not :) :) :) I make this statement in the spirit of the preceeding emoticons. :y
I do agree with you that a wholly nationalised concern does not always mean the the end product will be all that it should, but at the very least, the legislature should retain the majority holding and ensure that due progression is made towards providing the best and most up to date product available.
I think for many, a car is more essential than an Internet connection. Anyone who disagrees either lives in a city/town with public transport infrastructure, or really needs to get out into daylight once in a while ;D
An internet connection, whilst useful, is hardly a necessity for most.
If I couldn't drive, I would 'choose' to live somewhere that had a transport system I could use.
......thank you TB
In my view an up to date telecoms infrastructure means much more than access to the internet for domestic users, it's the facility the country uses to function.
Whilst a car is certainly vital for a lot of people, the provision of the best possible vehicle constrained by the most reasonable financial outlay is not a requirement which can be reasonably placed upon the leglislature - the provision of up to date telecoms, for whatever reason they're employed, is. :y
Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not :y
It is likely you can get a good internet speed to your premises :D. I guess options like LES10 (10Mb up, 10Mb down) would be available.
Downside is the cost :'(. For LES10, expect to pay a few hundred quid rental per month, and a few tens of thousands for installation (as it would itself need a fibre or similar laying to your door).
ADSL2 may help, and will be coming your way in the next 3yrs or so. Whether it will help dramatically (or at all) depends on the characteristics of your specific line.
And what is wrong with 512k. What requires more bandwidth? Until around a month ago, the DSL line on my desk at work was only 512k. This was shared amongst a few of us - some, like me, only doing odd testing via it, others using VPN into other company networks. Seemed OK to me :-/. OK, big solaris patch bundles were downloaded from my main connection rather than the DSL. Said line syncing at 7.5Mb (about 300yrds from exchange) :D
-
The central pillar of the argument still remains - why has BT not been obliged to enhance the network before this? I would submit that the primary reason is one of financial consideration and the need to meet the bottom line.
BT is the de-facto provider of telecommunications through its existing, if out-dated, network. This is a private company charged with providing a service vital to the national interest; surely that obligation should compel them to exploit the very best of available technology - irrespective of cost.
Do you think, for example, Vauxhall should engineer a new Omega, and give it to everyone at a loss? Same applies really.
BT met all of their legal obligations, and provided voice to you, most likely at a loss (actually, virtually all landlines are provided at a loss (my figures are over 5yrs old, may not be valid now)).
Look at those countries with nationalised telco, and look at the high price their citizens pay for a worse service, and a service that isn't available as (almost) universally in the UK.
....forgive me TB but the analogy fails as the provision of up to date telecoms is a necessity the other is not :) :) :) I make this statement in the spirit of the preceeding emoticons. :y
I do agree with you that a wholly nationalised concern does not always mean the the end product will be all that it should, but at the very least, the legislature should retain the majority holding and ensure that due progression is made towards providing the best and most up to date product available.
I think for many, a car is more essential than an Internet connection. Anyone who disagrees either lives in a city/town with public transport infrastructure, or really needs to get out into daylight once in a while ;D
An internet connection, whilst useful, is hardly a necessity for most.
If I couldn't drive, I would 'choose' to live somewhere that had a transport system I could use.
......thank you TB
In my view an up to date telecoms infrastructure means much more than access to the internet for domestic users, it's the facility the country uses to function.
Whilst a car is certainly vital for a lot of people, the provision of the best possible vehicle constrained by the most reasonable financial outlay is not a requirement which can be reasonably placed upon the leglislature - the provision of up to date telecoms, for whatever reason they're employed, is. :y
Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not :y
It is likely you can get a good internet speed to your premises :D. I guess options like LES10 (10Mb up, 10Mb down) would be available.
Downside is the cost :'(. For LES10, expect to pay a few hundred quid rental per month, and a few tens of thousands for installation (as it would itself need a fibre or similar laying to your door).
ADSL2 may help, and will be coming your way in the next 3yrs or so. Whether it will help dramatically (or at all) depends on the characteristics of your specific line.
And what is wrong with 512k. What requires more bandwidth? Until around a month ago, the DSL line on my desk at work was only 512k. This was shared amongst a few of us - some, like me, only doing odd testing via it, others using VPN into other company networks. Seemed OK to me :-/. OK, big solaris patch bundles were downloaded from my main connection rather than the DSL. Said line syncing at 7.5Mb (about 300yrds from exchange) :D
....I really don't mean to sound bitchy and anal TB, and I'm not being so, it comes from a lifetime of communicating in official-ese within certain departments.
The .5 service is a marked improvement over the previous dial-up, and I'm thankful for it - really.
Like Oliver however, is it wrong to ask for a little bit more - please? :y
-
The .5 service is a marked improvement over the previous dial-up, and I'm thankful for it - really.
Like Oliver however, is it wrong to ask for a little bit more - please? :y
My ISP has said they will knock one of my lines up to the 24M service for no extra charge, and with same, very generous d/l limits. Its likely I'll get in the region of 15-20Mbps :D. So, yes, extra is nice. Won't happen for me until next year, but that said, I'm not worried, as I really don't need the extra currently.
Are you on a fixed speed, ie 512k, or a MaxDSL product (up to 8Mbps)? What is your attenuation, and SNR? Who is your ISP?
-
The .5 service is a marked improvement over the previous dial-up, and I'm thankful for it - really.
Like Oliver however, is it wrong to ask for a little bit more - please? :y
My ISP has said they will knock one of my lines up to the 24M service for no extra charge, and with same, very generous d/l limits. Its likely I'll get in the region of 15-20Mbps :D. So, yes, extra is nice. Won't happen for me until next year, but that said, I'm not worried, as I really don't need the extra currently.
Are you on a fixed speed, ie 512k, or a MaxDSL product (up to 8Mbps)? What is your attenuation, and SNR? Who is your ISP?
Thank you TB pm sent :y
-
That is only 6 years and I don't know anyone with DAB.
I'm sure you know plenty of people who have Sky/Cable TV mate ;)
3 AFAIK
No use for portable radios