Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

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...

[TheBoy]

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).

[crazyjoetavola]

Thank you TB, your input is giving me much to think on

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?

[p j morgan]

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! :-?

[KillerWatt]

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.

[Dave-C]

[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

[Auto Addict]

50p towards broadband, like all the road tax goes towards maintaining the roads, they're having a laugh.

[TheBoy]

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.

[TheBoy]

50p towards broadband, like all the road tax goes towards maintaining the roads, they're having a laugh.

Nail and Head, Mr Silver Surfer....

[crazyjoetavola]

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


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)

[TheBoy]

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.

[TheBoy]

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'

[crazyjoetavola]

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.

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.   

[TheBoy]

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.

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

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.

[crazyjoetavola]

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