News - BT's proposed super-fast broadband already in jeapordy

Quote:

---

BT's chief executive has claimed that plans to invest in a nationwide fibre-optic infrastructure by 2012 are already in limbo.

---

Read more.

Hmm 2012 super-fast broadband or 2012 Olympics, which would benefit the country more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pauldarkside

Hmm 2012 super-fast broadband or 2012 Olympics, which would benefit the country more?

---

superfast broadband to only 10million mind you, Olympics will cost much much more

I don't understand why they team up with Virgin who already have 90% of the country in fibre? Why go to the trouble of laying more? Surely it'll be cheaper to rent the lines off virgin? Ultimately i think telecomunnications in the UK need to be Nationalised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxdieUK

I don't understand why they team up with Virgin who already have 90% of the country in fibre?

---

*Snigger*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pauldarkside

Hmm 2012 super-fast broadband or 2012 Olympics, which would benefit the country more?

---

A fibre infrastructure that provides 100mbps to the home will last for decades to come and will have far more important business and telecommunications applications, with a multiplexing of services which will remove the need to service multiple lines for distinct service types. On the other hand, the Olympics cause a massive drain in resources for a few years, for an event that only lasts a month, and you have nothing to show for it once it's over other than a big pile of rubbish and a massive stadium that has no use other than to horde valuable space.

Yeah, the Olympics is obviously the better investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxdieUK

I don't understand why they team up with Virgin who already have 90% of the country in fibre? Why go to the trouble of laying more? Surely it'll be cheaper to rent the lines off virgin?

---

Because having a single infrastructure would only make sense. And it means they wouldn't have full control over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxdieUK

Ultimately i think telecomunnications in the UK need to be Nationalised.

---

I completely agree, this scale of infrastructure shouldn't be left to private companies to botch up and is wasteful duplication. Although the current government would probably screw it up worse if they got their hands on it.

They are both important for the country. Snigger all you want about the olympics but they are happening and they can do a huge amount to boost this country. That said having the fastest broadband we can get going to the largest number of people possible is also hugely important to the country. Yeah we are going into recession but that that doesn't change the fact that our lives are becoming every more connected so the faster connections the better we will be able to take advantage of the oppertunitys that will offer.

Quote:

---

I don't understand why they team up with Virgin who already have 90% of the country in fibre?

---

This is because Virgin's "fibre" is actually copper coax cables. BT were going to be installing the fibre that uses lasers and optical fibre cables. Virgin just runs on lies and misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cordas

Snigger all you want about the olympics but they are happening and they can do a huge amount to boost this country.

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtanto

This is because Virgin's "fibre" is actually copper coax cables. BT were going to be installing the fibre that uses lasers and optical fibre cables. Virgin just runs on lies and misinformation.

---

Be that as it may, both companies could work together to develop the core fibre infrastructure and utilise virgins 'last mile' fibre runs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Such as?

---

Tourists? I'm not arguing the point just pointing out what might be in his reply :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtanto

Virgin just runs on lies and misinformation.

---

and traffic shaping/throttling/limiting whichever :)
If it really were fiber I'm sure they wouldn't need to resort to that. At least some ADSL2+ companies know how to make use of the copper :laugh:

Another "BT drags its heels" story .. If it wasnt for Ofcom we'd all still be on dial-up with BT being the only provider. When ADSL came BT didnt want to invest in new equipment they had to be pushed into it by Ofcom. BT will always adopt the attitude of why should I bother?

The UK is already a long way behind the likes of Germany and other European countries and that will never change with a company like BT in the driving seat. BT is more than happy for us to continue using the same 40 year old copper coming in from the street for another 40 years.

As for Virgin, lets not even go there.. The don't have 90% of the country cabled up -> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cable/local/
Even if you do live in a green or blue area cable is not always available. Overall they may seem organised but underneath its a complete mess caused by merger after merger after merger as all the cable companies in the UK became one.

The only way forward is for Ofcom to allow other companies & isp's to lay new fibre in the sewers or by digging up roads. But most likely local council's will likely veto any of this. Councils dont like people digging up there roads unless its to put in a new guided bus lane or more speed cameras.


:telephone:

I wouldn't say the UK is lagging behind Germany, quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. But Scandinavia, on the other hand, makes us look like cave men grunting.

The likes of S.Korea, and Japan have some fantastic domestic lines.

Quote:

---

BT's chief executive has claimed that plans to invest in a nationwide fibre-optic infrastructure by 2012 are already in limbo.

---

I'm not sure I agree with that wording tbh.

According to both your article and the original Guardian one, the BT chief executive hs merely said that some shareholders think this should happen. There's no indication that the programme has actually yet been put on hold.

Sounds to me like BT is just trying to put pressure on OFCOM to make a favourable decision.

To quote from his comments on the Guardian article:

Quote:

---

I personally believe if it is the right thing to do as a 20-year decision it is the right thing to do," he said. "But we need to have the environment in which our shareholders feel there is a good chance of us making a return. If we cannot have that environment this is not the time to be taking on sure-fire losses.

---

I dont think there will be a one or the other choice for the UK. With the Olympics will come the desire for the BBC to deliver the information to you in new and fantastic ways. I think the two events will be pretty much hand it hand... they will almost have to be really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moogle

and traffic shaping/throttling/limiting whichever :)

---

Virgin Media's fair usage policy is actually one of the most friendly, take a look at the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I dont think there will be a one or the other choice for the UK. With the Olympics will come the desire for the BBC to deliver the information to you in new and fantastic ways. I think the two events will be pretty much hand it hand... they will almost have to be really.

---

I'm with Biscuit, hosting the Olympics will only encourage fibre setup. All that tasty HD footage needs somewhere to go.

With respect to Virgin Media's setup, it is at best fibre to the roadside box, and was designed to mid-90's standards for the bandwidth estimates from before the era of mass internet video, interactive TV, etc. As a Virgin media user and a former tech support monkey, I have also noticed certain other issues arising which would be off-putting about such a move, and I know also some other details that I can't go into here, but suffice to say, I would not want to share Virgin Media's network.

Regarding BT putting pressure on Ofcom, I have to be honest and say that those who think that BT is still the great evil really don't know what they are talking about. BT has more regulations imposed on it than any other telecoms company in the UK, has had to uphold various legal requirements for years longer than other telecoms (and may still have some exclusive to it) and is the only one with contractual obligations to the government that cannot be stopped or altered from BT's side. BT offices are at risk of unannounced spot inspections by ofcom. The main reason why other providers have not laid their own cable systems, built their own exchanges, is not ofcom, but rather those other companies themselves! The expense of building a robust national infrastructure is ridiculously high, even just laying their own cables between exchanges. Most ISPs buy bandwidth still from the major owner of UK infrastructure - BT - and BT is required by ofcom to not charge a true market rate.

I know that many people have had serious issues with BT home services, but please also remember that BT Retail is a separate business unit within BT Group, and that this story and the redundancy announcement effect the group as a whole.

Like some other commenters, though, I do believe that the BT infrastructure should never have been privatised. Like rail, power and water systems, these are all too vital to a modern country to not be under public control, and often have so many regulations thrust upon them that it really does look inappropriate for a business to try and run or compete with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosaline

Like some other commenters, though, I do believe that the BT infrastructure should never have been privatised. Like rail, power and water systems, these are all too vital to a modern country to not be under public control, and often have so many regulations thrust upon them that it really does look inappropriate for a business to try and run or compete with them.

---

I agree entirely with this comment; as far as I am concerned, vital services such as the telecommuncations network and the public transport network should not be privatised. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy competition between companies as this will usually provide a better and more affordable service to the customer than would be otherwise available, however I would be much more comfortable in the knowledge that the services we depend on are under strict public control, ensuring that they are of an adequate quality for our needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francium

I agree entirely with this comment; as far as I am concerned, vital services such as the telecommuncations network and the public transport network should not be privatised. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy competition between companies as this will usually provide a better and more affordable service to the customer than would be otherwise available, however I would be much more comfortable in the knowledge that the services we depend on are under strict public control, ensuring that they are of an adequate quality for our needs.

---

And it's very easy for the government to develop and maintain national infrastructure while leasing it out to businesses to use it, deal with customers, and compete with each other. The advantage of that is the government can wholesale the infrastructure at cost price in a non-profit capacity and maintain high quality of service. Which will keep costs down for everyone.

But no, European governments follow the American mantra of ''free' market at all costs', just look at the ridiculous state of their communications infrastructure. While the 'dirty commies' in Scandinavia have infrastructure which is decades ahead of us.