But, why don't Virgin and or Sky provide fibre services to your area, probably the same reason as BT,? cost.

These threads make me laugh, some threads ranting on about how little BT are improving the broadband infrastructure, then when they raise prices (not a lot really) people mouth off again.

Bt is not a charity, no profit, no improvements.

Agreed Neo_Wales.

Share holders to keep happy, Staff wages, Buisness costs etc.
The list is endless.

Contact BT - Speak with retentions or switch providers. Lots of other providers.

Although I disagree with the sentiment of his post there is some fact there. They are technically the same company. Just different parts of that company.


Agreed, how about the billions they are spending rolling out FTTC.

So what is Ian Livingston the CEO of and why do share holders hold shares for all of Bt and not just of one part?

It is a swiz and you know it.

Bt knows full well that most people would get rid of their landline if they could get a decent broadband service a different way at a decent price.

3g is not that great and is expensive.

That is not a improvement in phone lines, that is a fudge, the copper system is still falling apart. My phone line have suppose to have been replaced 10 years ago and yet it is still hanging by a thread and a right mess, it is a wonder I had voice never mind broadband.

I get better quality voice over VoIP, no crackling or buzzing.

the improvements never come to the areas outside cites so rural areas end up paying the same increases with no benefit, the only people who ever benefit are the shareholders, same with energy companies, they up the prices then we hear how much profit they've made

no they dont, we have no fibre services and the exchange hasnt been unbundled.

Its business, simple as that and of course the big urban areas will get upgraded first, common sense.

Yet it still worked and your still whining and moaning. The copper system is not falling apart, its used by tens of millions of UK people everyday so really your talking utter tosh yet again

I am pretty sure that if they sorted the cable out I would have had a slightly better speed on broadband.

Maybe you live somewhere which is pretty new, so the cables are new, some of the cables around here been here for years, certainly at some of the older estates.

A main bundle of cables running up one of the main roads here is falling apart, I been told that by a Bt engineer as they have to keep swapping pairs, like they did to my mate when they eventually found out what the problem was. the problem is they will eventually run out of cables to swap and will have to dig the road up to replace the lot.

Should have gone all fibre, not this fudge FTTC they are doing. sure I can understand they are a business and they got to make money, but do something for it.

BT Copper is not 'falling apart' at all, if it was this would be reflected in the number of faults on the underground system, and BT would need to employ a lot more maintenance engineers to keep up with demand, BT like every other provider (Virgin, Sky, etc) are in business to make money, and, give a service, I feel sure that quite a few people have complaints about Virgin, Sky, etc, BT in no longer a nationalised company.

FTTP to all properties would have been hideously expensive, especially in older estates (where existing ducting is likely to be congested or even blocked), and would probably have given BT a very low return on investment (especially where only a small number of customers would be interested in the capabilities of such a connection).

Quite a number of housing estates, especially those built in the late 60's early 70's will have an system called DLI (Direct Lead In) whereby the feed cable to the property was not put in a duct but buried directly in the ground, as were the 'main' cables outside on the pavement, so no ducts, not able to pull fibre in to the property, not sure whether BT are using overhead fibre cable, but if not then that is another problem.

Your moaning about this increase, how much would they need to put cable into every home?

Might I suggest more than BT can afford without dramatically increasing prices......oh wait, that is where we came in....

It is just lack of knowledge that's all.

If BT hadn't invested in cable then there wouldn't be polythene insulated cable going to the top of nearly every pole in the country. Openreach engineers would open an underground joint to find paper cables and lead cables, but they don't. Fact is it is mostly polythene insulated cables and plastic watertight joints. So obviously an awful lot of money has been spent over the years in upgrading the network. Yes it is copper, but the copper itself is well protected from the weather. Something that couldn't be said 20 years ago and that is reflected in the low fault levels in BT's network.

You'll also notice the vast majority of overhead cables are now of the thicker black type, rather than the thin grey cables they used to use. Again the thick black ones are far, far more weather (and tree) resistant. If there had been no investment and the network was 'falling apart' we wouldn't see all of these improvements.

Cynical me says that you BT customers are footing the bill to pay for The EPL packages next season

It's not that much!! Where on earth did you get those prices?

Probably. Just as all Sky customers subsidise those who subscribe to Sky Sports, I suspect and yes, they are having to suffer a big price rise this year too. That's how big business operates, when necessary.

May be expensive, but at least it would be future proof. It seems like there are still a small number of people interested in FTTC, But Bt is still spending money on that.

I wonder how modern is the place where you live? Where I live was built before the war and the cables got to be at least 40 years old if not older, that is a long time for copper stuck underground to stay in good condition.


Bt is a company that got the infrastructure for a pittance and since then we the public have been paying the price. I got about as much time for Bt as I have for Talk Talk to be honest.

and for the money they spend sponsoring the Olympics, I wonder how much of that money they got back?

Here at the bottom in the price table or have I misunderstood it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bil...inflation.html