I think the marketing by the larger ISP's is turning to an internal competition, but not taking into account that the home user just doesn't want/require super extreme speeds. They just want to be able to announce "we are the fastest ISP" The majority are still happy with 1-2 Mbps.
I can't imagine 1-2Mbits being fast enough for a lot of websites these days. I'd say 6Mbits is a good enough connection.
Please define "worth it" - do you mean local residents connected to this exchange are somehow not as "worthy" of faster BB speeds as those lucky enough to be connected to larger exchanges or those cherry picked exchanges by other LLU operators?
The fact that we have less than a thousand homes connected to our exchange should not somehow be a bar to enjoying the same facilities as those connected to more "profitable" exchanges. This is where the regulator should step in. We are paying just the same amount (or in many cases more) for the same BB service yet do not receive the same service. No other ISP is going to LLU such a small exchange even I can appreciate that. However, BT as the incumbent operator would not have the overheads that an LLU operator would have in simply upgrading to WBC.
If you want to keep referring to BT as a business responsible to it's shareholders then fine - I am a shareholder in BT and would be quite happy with a smaller dividend if it means fast universal access to all.
OFCOM should step in and do what? Force a provider to install equipment in an exchange where the provider won't make the money back for years?
It is driven by economics. If BT Wholesale, or another provider, thought that they would be able to make a profit then they'd be installing the equipment.
I think you'd be suprised the number of users who just 'log on' to view emails and maybe check 1-2 news sites per day. Don't assume the majority are heavy clickers on media rich websites, and it's these users who are happy with 1-2 Mbps.
I think you'd be suprised the number of users who just 'log on' to view emails and maybe check 1-2 news sites per day. Don't assume the majority are heavy clickers on media rich websites, and it's these users who are happy with 1-2 Mbps.
What ISPs, these days, offer 1-2Mbits though? I'd imagine the minimum would be 8Mbits.
There are not a lot as you rightly say, but those who have existing packages 5+ years old are happy with those speeds and don't want to upgrade. Also, some areas can only get a max of 1-2 due to the distance from their exchanges.
Please define "worth it" - do you mean local residents connected to this exchange are somehow not as "worthy" of faster BB speeds as those lucky enough to be connected to larger exchanges or those cherry picked exchanges by other LLU operators?
The fact that we have less than a thousand homes connected to our exchange should not somehow be a bar to enjoying the same facilities as those connected to more "profitable" exchanges. This is where the regulator should step in. We are paying just the same amount (or in many cases more) for the same BB service yet do not receive the same service. No other ISP is going to LLU such a small exchange even I can appreciate that. However, BT as the incumbent operator would not have the overheads that an LLU operator would have in simply upgrading to WBC.
If you want to keep referring to BT as a business responsible to it's shareholders then fine - I am a shareholder in BT and would be quite happy with a smaller dividend if it means fast universal access to all.
My point is that if your exchange is 'not worth it' from a point of view that any investment in that exchange would not have a reasonable return (profit) is valid, if BT were a national utility, paid for by the taxpayer, your request would be entirely reasonable but BT is a business,
The regulator already ties BT's hands ,for example BT have been told to reduce the wholesale price it charges CP's for ADSL in your type of exchange, but what OFCOM cannot do is tell BT where to spend its money, its silly to think OFCOM can say to BT, you go and borrow money and spend it on something that will never return a profit...thats the economics of the madhouse, also your point that BT as the incumbent would somehow have lower costs than Sky or TT makes no sense, if TT and Sky cherry pick profitable exchanges and ignore the others, but BT had no choice but to service those exchanges, BT would have to charge more than Sky and TT even in the profitable exchanges to subsidise the loss making services in the others..a consequence being that more customers leave for TT and Sky because of their lower prices, leaving BT with a faster shrinking customer base, and the inevitable price increases (and less money for investment)..and so the cycle goes...
I'm sure people in rural areas probably pay more for fuel and food locally and cannot get a pizza delivered, but they do have benefits, probably less crime, and a better enviroment to live in, you probably have a choice where to live and have to weigh the advantages and disavantages, to expect everything a town/city can offer and to expect others to subsidise its provision doesnt seem fair, and although you ( as a BT shareholder ) would accept a smaller dividend, I'm sure a pension fund manager wouldnt, and its not like its a case of I'm alright Jack, my exchange does have ADSL2 but I connect at less than 3Mb because of the distance to the exchange, so I would never be upgraded from ADSL to ADSL2 because any increase in speed would be tiny
My point is that if your exchange is 'not worth it' from a point of view that any investment in that exchange would not have a reasonable return (profit) is valid, if BT were a national utility, paid for by the taxpayer, your request would be entirely reasonable but BT is a business,
The regulator already ties BT's hands ,for example BT have been told to reduce the wholesale price it charges CP's for ADSL in your type of exchange, but what OFCOM cannot do is tell BT where to spend its money, its silly to think OFCOM can say to BT, you go and borrow money and spend it on something that will never return a profit...thats the economics of the madhouse, also your point that BT as the incumbent would somehow have lower costs than Sky or TT makes no sense, if TT and Sky cherry pick profitable exchanges and ignore the others, but BT had no choice but to service those exchanges, BT would have to charge more than Sky and TT even in the profitable exchanges to subsidise the loss making services in the others..a consequence being that more customers leave for TT and Sky because of their lower prices, leaving BT with a faster shrinking customer base, and the inevitable price increases (and less money for investment)..and so the cycle goes...
I'm sure people in rural areas probably pay more for fuel and food locally and cannot get a pizza delivered, but they do have benefits, probably less crime, and a better enviroment to live in, you probably have a choice where to live and have to weigh the advantages and disavantages, to expect everything a town/city can offer and to expect others to subsidise its provision doesnt seem fair, and although you ( as a BT shareholder ) would accept a smaller dividend, I'm sure a pension fund manager wouldnt, and its not like its a case of I'm alright Jack, my exchnage does have ADSL2 but I connect at less than 3Mb because of the distance to the exchange, so I would never be upgraded from ADSL to ADSL2 because any increase in speed would be tiny
There are many flaws in your argument though well put. For a start I live in a very large city not in the country and because of this we suffer again i.e. not rural so don't qualify for government subsidy. B.T. already cross subsidise throughout their business. Of course B.T. have an advantage as they own the exchanges and the infrastructure. To say the regulator cannot skew the market is frankly ridiculous as that is exactly what they have been doing for years hence we now have LLU exchanges. Sky BB is already substantially cheaper than B.T. BB though as I am on Connect using a BT service that is not the case - well not exactly true in my case as I am getting a decent discount from Sky because our exchange has no LLU.
What ISPs, these days, offer 1-2Mbits though? I'd imagine the minimum would be 8Mbits.
Mobile phone, dongle, tablet users are often run at 1-2Mb, its more than good enough for forums or email.
Some folk are like little spoilt children "I want, I want" when in reality they have to realise they have to wait, the world does not revolve around them, BT is a profit orientated business so big bucks in the bank before the little bucks get to the front of the queue.
Mobile phone, dongle, tablet users are often run at 1-2Mb, its more than good enough for forums or email.
Some folk are like little spoilt children "I want, I want" when in reality they have to realise they have to wait, the world does not revolve around them, BT is a profit orientated business so big bucks in the bank before the little bucks get to the front of the queue.
I was referring to broadband for PCs. I would have made that clear, but I thought people would have known this when reading my post.
I think you'd be suprised the number of users who just 'log on' to view emails and maybe check 1-2 news sites per day. Don't assume the majority are heavy clickers on media rich websites, and it's these users who are happy with 1-2 Mbps.
I haven't made any assumption that the 'majority' are heavy users at all.
You've made the assumption that the 'majority' are light users with no interest in using the likes of BBC iPlayer, Sky Go or any other service where a +2Mbps connection is really needed in order to use those services and still be able to do other things in the background at the same time.
The amount of people using these types of services is increasing all the time.
For BBC iPlayer alone there were 153,000,000 programmes watched/listened to in July 2011.
If the programmes/whatever were viewed more than once, yes. Unless the BBC iPlayer's content on its webpage is accessible worldwide. If so, that could EASILY push up the amount of downloads to 153 million.
I was referring to broadband for PCs. I would have made that clear, but I thought people would have known this when reading my post.
PC users of course 'want' higher speeds but as I said they cannot demand it like it was some given right, they have to wait while profits are made and the networks to lower density areas are expanded.
PC users of course 'want' higher speeds but as I said they cannot demand it like it was some given right, they have to wait while profits are made and the networks to lower density areas are expanded.
Sounds very much like promises of "jam tomorrow" to me. :rolleyes:
Sounds very much like promises of "jam tomorrow" to me. :rolleyes:
Not really, its was pretty much the same with the expansion of the telephone network, towns/cities then expand into the rural areas.
A problem today is that we live in an age of 'instant gratification' people want it all now and more tomorrow :rolleyes: Reality is not like that is it.
Not really, its was pretty much the same with the expansion of the telephone network, towns/cities then expand into the rural areas.
A problem today is that we live in an age of 'instant gratification' people want it all now and more tomorrow :rolleyes: Reality is not like that is it.
Well let's turn you argument on it's head shall we. B.T. have been making significant profits for years - I know as being a shareholder I get the information in detail. Now let B.T. use that profit to start with all the M1 and the rural exchanges (often the same but not always) and upgrade those first. Customers in the large towns and cities will still have their BB and seeing as they have no alternative will stay with their current suppliers by and large - little point moving.
Once those are done then move to the other areas. What is wrong with that? B.T. are charging similar price for Infinity as they already charge for copper based BB so you can't argue that it is these profits that drive the expansion to other areas as it clearly isn't.
Well let's turn you argument on it's head shall we. B.T. have been making significant profits for years - I know as being a shareholder I get the information in detail. Now let B.T. use that profit to start with all the M1 and the rural exchanges (often the same but not always) and upgrade those first. Customers in the large towns and cities will still have their BB and seeing as they have no alternative will stay with their current suppliers by and large - little point moving.
Once those are done then move to the other areas. What is wrong with that? B.T. are charging similar price for Infinity as they already charge for copper based BB so you can't argue that it is these profits that drive the expansion to other areas as it clearly isn't.
Yes but obviously these areas do not have a chance of a return in profit in amount of time BT like. This could be down to demand,population.
BT are a business they will do things to make a profit not to make loss to only gain it back slowly. If there was something to gain from doing up these exchanges bt would be straight on it but obviously not as simple as you seem to think.
Yes but obviously these areas do not have a chance of a return in profit in amount of time BT like. This could be down to demand,population.
BT are a business they will do things to make a profit not to make loss to only gain it back slowly. If there was something to gain from doing up these exchanges bt would be straight on it but obviously not as simple as you seem to think.
Yes but obviously these areas do not have a chance of a return in profit in amount of time BT like. This could be down to demand,population.
BT are a business they will do things to make a profit not to make loss to only gain it back slowly. If there was something to gain from doing up these exchanges bt would be straight on it but obviously not as simple as you seem to think.
No it's absolutely as simple as I think, it's you that hasn't grasped my argument. B.T. charges say £25 for BB unlimited and charges same for Infinity so no increase in revenue stream from whichever exchange they upgrade - not hard to follow. B.T. start on all the small exchanges first and apart from Virgin in some limited areas rest of countries exchanges are still on copper so little point anyone on larger exchanges complaining or moving as all in same boat - not hard to follow? B.T would still be making the same profits from large exchanges still on copper as they would on Infinity. Why then does starting with all the large exchanges increase B.T. profits so they can move to less profitable ones - no increase in profits as price charged still the same?
This has got far more to do with Kudos and political pressure than about profit.
No it's absolutely as simple as I think, it's you that hasn't grasped my argument. B.T. charges say £25 for BB unlimited and charges same for Infinity so no increase in revenue stream from whichever exchange they upgrade - not hard to follow. B.T. start on all the small exchanges first and apart from Virgin in some limited areas rest of countries exchanges are still on copper so little point anyone on larger exchanges complaining or moving as all in same boat - not hard to follow? B.T would still be making the same profits from large exchanges still on copper as they would on Infinity. Why then does starting with all the large exchanges increase B.T. profits so they can move to less profitable ones - no increase in profits as price charged still the same?
This has got far more to do with Kudos and political pressure than about profit.
You really are not making any sense what so ever...............................................
By starting with bigger and more profitable exchanges they get more income. BT have on many occasion done surveys on new locations of upgrades for both fiber and copper products. This shows them the overall demand in the area. IF the demand is not there
ITS NOT PROFITABLE FOR YEARS !
If there is little amount of people in the area
IT TAKES LONGER TO MAKE PROFIT FROM WHAT EVER THEY DECIDE UPGRADE !
Some areas will not make enough money why can't you grasp that ?
So you idea of fibering or having better copper services would take years of making profit and could cause cost cutting meaning more job losses etc or even bt ending up another big British company going bust.
No it's absolutely as simple as I think, it's you that hasn't grasped my argument. B.T. charges say £25 for BB unlimited and charges same for Infinity so no increase in revenue stream from whichever exchange they upgrade - not hard to follow. B.T. start on all the small exchanges first and apart from Virgin in some limited areas rest of countries exchanges are still on copper so little point anyone on larger exchanges complaining or moving as all in same boat - not hard to follow? B.T would still be making the same profits from large exchanges still on copper as they would on Infinity. Why then does starting with all the large exchanges increase B.T. profits so they can move to less profitable ones - no increase in profits as price charged still the same?
This has got far more to do with Kudos and political pressure than about profit.
It's not about exchanges, it's about street cabinets.Lets say each cabinet costs £20k to upgrade and that the revenue and profit from ADSL2+ and an Infinity services are the same. If the profit is £1/customer/month, it will take 20,000 customer months to break even. A higher density cabinet provides a faster return on investment than a lower density cab. This doesnt take into account the fact that higher density cabs are more likely to be in areas that already have the choice of LLU or virgin.
So if it was your £20k, would you invest it where you could expect an ROI after x years or 10x years ?
Comments
I can't imagine 1-2Mbits being fast enough for a lot of websites these days. I'd say 6Mbits is a good enough connection.
OFCOM should step in and do what? Force a provider to install equipment in an exchange where the provider won't make the money back for years?
It is driven by economics. If BT Wholesale, or another provider, thought that they would be able to make a profit then they'd be installing the equipment.
The majority have speeds in excess of 1-2 Mbps and would not be happy to have their speeds reduced.
What ISPs, these days, offer 1-2Mbits though? I'd imagine the minimum would be 8Mbits.
My point is that if your exchange is 'not worth it' from a point of view that any investment in that exchange would not have a reasonable return (profit) is valid, if BT were a national utility, paid for by the taxpayer, your request would be entirely reasonable but BT is a business,
The regulator already ties BT's hands ,for example BT have been told to reduce the wholesale price it charges CP's for ADSL in your type of exchange, but what OFCOM cannot do is tell BT where to spend its money, its silly to think OFCOM can say to BT, you go and borrow money and spend it on something that will never return a profit...thats the economics of the madhouse, also your point that BT as the incumbent would somehow have lower costs than Sky or TT makes no sense, if TT and Sky cherry pick profitable exchanges and ignore the others, but BT had no choice but to service those exchanges, BT would have to charge more than Sky and TT even in the profitable exchanges to subsidise the loss making services in the others..a consequence being that more customers leave for TT and Sky because of their lower prices, leaving BT with a faster shrinking customer base, and the inevitable price increases (and less money for investment)..and so the cycle goes...
I'm sure people in rural areas probably pay more for fuel and food locally and cannot get a pizza delivered, but they do have benefits, probably less crime, and a better enviroment to live in, you probably have a choice where to live and have to weigh the advantages and disavantages, to expect everything a town/city can offer and to expect others to subsidise its provision doesnt seem fair, and although you ( as a BT shareholder ) would accept a smaller dividend, I'm sure a pension fund manager wouldnt, and its not like its a case of I'm alright Jack, my exchange does have ADSL2 but I connect at less than 3Mb because of the distance to the exchange, so I would never be upgraded from ADSL to ADSL2 because any increase in speed would be tiny
There are many flaws in your argument though well put. For a start I live in a very large city not in the country and because of this we suffer again i.e. not rural so don't qualify for government subsidy. B.T. already cross subsidise throughout their business. Of course B.T. have an advantage as they own the exchanges and the infrastructure. To say the regulator cannot skew the market is frankly ridiculous as that is exactly what they have been doing for years hence we now have LLU exchanges. Sky BB is already substantially cheaper than B.T. BB though as I am on Connect using a BT service that is not the case - well not exactly true in my case as I am getting a decent discount from Sky because our exchange has no LLU.
Mobile phone, dongle, tablet users are often run at 1-2Mb, its more than good enough for forums or email.
Some folk are like little spoilt children "I want, I want" when in reality they have to realise they have to wait, the world does not revolve around them, BT is a profit orientated business so big bucks in the bank before the little bucks get to the front of the queue.
I was referring to broadband for PCs. I would have made that clear, but I thought people would have known this when reading my post.
I haven't made any assumption that the 'majority' are heavy users at all.
You've made the assumption that the 'majority' are light users with no interest in using the likes of BBC iPlayer, Sky Go or any other service where a +2Mbps connection is really needed in order to use those services and still be able to do other things in the background at the same time.
The amount of people using these types of services is increasing all the time.
For BBC iPlayer alone there were 153,000,000 programmes watched/listened to in July 2011.
If the programmes/whatever were viewed more than once, yes. Unless the BBC iPlayer's content on its webpage is accessible worldwide. If so, that could EASILY push up the amount of downloads to 153 million.
PC users of course 'want' higher speeds but as I said they cannot demand it like it was some given right, they have to wait while profits are made and the networks to lower density areas are expanded.
Sounds very much like promises of "jam tomorrow" to me. :rolleyes:
Not really, its was pretty much the same with the expansion of the telephone network, towns/cities then expand into the rural areas.
A problem today is that we live in an age of 'instant gratification' people want it all now and more tomorrow :rolleyes: Reality is not like that is it.
Well let's turn you argument on it's head shall we. B.T. have been making significant profits for years - I know as being a shareholder I get the information in detail. Now let B.T. use that profit to start with all the M1 and the rural exchanges (often the same but not always) and upgrade those first. Customers in the large towns and cities will still have their BB and seeing as they have no alternative will stay with their current suppliers by and large - little point moving.
Once those are done then move to the other areas. What is wrong with that? B.T. are charging similar price for Infinity as they already charge for copper based BB so you can't argue that it is these profits that drive the expansion to other areas as it clearly isn't.
What's wrong with that is that it is not economically viable.
Have a look at the costs per property involved in getting fibre into Hambleton.
Yes but obviously these areas do not have a chance of a return in profit in amount of time BT like. This could be down to demand,population.
BT are a business they will do things to make a profit not to make loss to only gain it back slowly. If there was something to gain from doing up these exchanges bt would be straight on it but obviously not as simple as you seem to think.
They can't even upgrade Cable TV in Milton Keynes and Westminster or even offer a full IPTV service let alone 300MB broadband.
Virgin Media will have launched 400MB nationally before BT even completes one town.
and furthermore you don't need a phone line with Cable.
Thank you jjesso.
I've some BT shares in my portfolio as well
It does seem as if Virgin get straight to it when bringing out a faster broadband service.
No it's absolutely as simple as I think, it's you that hasn't grasped my argument. B.T. charges say £25 for BB unlimited and charges same for Infinity so no increase in revenue stream from whichever exchange they upgrade - not hard to follow. B.T. start on all the small exchanges first and apart from Virgin in some limited areas rest of countries exchanges are still on copper so little point anyone on larger exchanges complaining or moving as all in same boat - not hard to follow? B.T would still be making the same profits from large exchanges still on copper as they would on Infinity. Why then does starting with all the large exchanges increase B.T. profits so they can move to less profitable ones - no increase in profits as price charged still the same?
This has got far more to do with Kudos and political pressure than about profit.
But that cost will still be the same whether it is done first or last doh!
You really are not making any sense what so ever...............................................
By starting with bigger and more profitable exchanges they get more income. BT have on many occasion done surveys on new locations of upgrades for both fiber and copper products. This shows them the overall demand in the area. IF the demand is not there
ITS NOT PROFITABLE FOR YEARS !
If there is little amount of people in the area
IT TAKES LONGER TO MAKE PROFIT FROM WHAT EVER THEY DECIDE UPGRADE !
Some areas will not make enough money why can't you grasp that ?
So you idea of fibering or having better copper services would take years of making profit and could cause cost cutting meaning more job losses etc or even bt ending up another big British company going bust.
So if it was your £20k, would you invest it where you could expect an ROI after x years or 10x years ?