Print

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

[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'

......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

Any change of the copper (alledgedly  ) 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

[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.   

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.

......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.

Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not

[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

Any change of the copper (alledgedly  ) 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

  thank you TB, and I'm stuck with my .5

[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.

......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.

Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not

It is likely you can get a good internet speed to your premises .  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)

[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.   

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.

......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.

Without sound telecoms the nation is in difficulty, without recourse to private transport, although inconvient to say the least, the nation is not

It is likely you can get a good internet speed to your premises .  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)

....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?

[TheBoy]

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?

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 .  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?

[crazyjoetavola]

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?

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 .  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

[Martin_1962]

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