Skip Navigation
Homepage » News Archive » View News Item 3826

Be fight back with 45Mbps bonded broadband
Tuesday 16 December 2008 15:46:19 by John Hunt

Be Broadband, the ISP owned by O2's parent company, Telefonica, have announced today the successful completion of their bonded broadband trial which ran on the London Paddington exchange. The trial was mainly aimed at understanding the technical capabilities involved using ADSL2+ over two telephone lines which were bonded together to make one line. Customers reported real-world speeds of between 30Mbps and 45Mbps- just 5Mbps shy of Virgin's headline 50meg speed. Be will be carrying out further trials through 2009.

A single twisted pair copper phone line is limited in how fast it can transfer data, and connecting multiple lines together is one solution to try and increase the bandwidth without deploying equipment closer to the exchange such as in the BT FTTC trials. One drawback of bonding is that you will need to pay for two telephone lines, one for each DSL line, which will increase the cost. DSL does also vary speed depending on the distance from the exchange (unlike the Virgin cable services) and so the highest speeds will only be available to those who live the closest.

"We want to push the limits of high-speed broadband. We already offer the fastest possible broadband on an ADSL line, but we want to take it a step further. If you want broadband around the 50Mb mark but don’t want to go the cable route, Be wants to offer you a real alternative."

Felix Geyr, (Managing Director) Be Broadband

One point worth making is that although Be services are not limited to the area of the Virgin cable network, many of the exchanges where Be provide service will overlap with Virgin, and this will also leave many areas of the UK unable to get either Virgin's 50meg of the Be bonded broadband. Competition will breed new services though and if other providers are able to offer similar services to Virgin's 50meg soon, maybe Virgin will be forced to up the speed sooner than they thought if they want to keep the crown of fastest broadband.

[ Topic: Internet Service Providers | 122 comments | link to this item ]
Digg this Add to del.icio.us

Comments

Posted by AndrueC about 1 year ago
"Competition will bread new services though "

..but only for the upper crust perhaps :D

Sorry.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
I like the sound of this, will of course have to see what prices are like first but this could be my new provider within a year or so.
Posted by timmay about 1 year ago
Lets just hope be* get a good network in place first before offering 30~50Mbps that falls back to dial-up like speeds at peek times.
Posted by CaptainW about 1 year ago
Sounds good but I agree, they really need to ensure their network can handle the demand - I understand that they have bonded two lines but is this as simple as the router seeing both lines as one? or am I being far too simplistic?
Posted by Pigmaster about 1 year ago
"Webwise also helped protect users from websites that are thought to be fraudulent or untrustworthy."

I wonder just how many PC's were infected by trojans/malware during this trial. I bet we won't here those figures
Posted by uniquename about 1 year ago
@ Pigmaster.

Am I missing somethig? Where did that come from?
Posted by chrysalis about 1 year ago
of course 45mbit is best case and a very low single % number. Whilst typical speeds on cable will be way higher.

Imagine on a typical line (typical lines do 4-6mbit) then you need to bond about 10 of them O_o.
Posted by siege2 about 1 year ago
your on about adsl "4-6mbit depends on your line length and cabling,noise, etc" not adsl 2;
that 4-6 mbit on be is alot more maybe 6 mbit!
although my line can do 24MBp's I could get a download speed off 22 to 23 mbits!
Posted by xrio about 1 year ago
You're still gonna need a load balancing or bonded solution like Xrio UBM if you want failover and connection resilience *sigh*
Posted by rian about 1 year ago
It may be worth a look how much it will cost. 2 BT lines cost about 22 POUNDS/mo. Guess the bonded service will cost from 30 to 36 POUNDS/mo. Might be a good solution for those who doesn't stick with Virgin.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"your on about adsl "4-6mbit depends on your line length and cabling,noise, etc" not adsl 2;
that 4-6 mbit on be is alot more maybe 6 mbit!
although my line can do 24MBp's I could get a download speed off 22 to 23 mbits!"

NO Chrysalis is refering to people that live a distance from the exchange or have lines so poor they will only get 6Mb, ADSL2+ doesnt automatically guarantee you better speed, especially if you are a distance from the exchange.
Posted by dustofnations about 1 year ago
@xrio

It would seem fairly counterintutive that having bonded ADSL from the same provider would offer any extra resilience, presumably if any one link in the chain back to the ISP breaks both lines are liable to be equally broken (exchange, dns, routing etcetera)
As an aside I think they're providing (for 'free?')the routers that do the balancing and bonding, right?
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
You get 22 odd Mb becasue you are close to the exchange, if you were several miles away your speed would barely be better than normal ADSL for the worst case situations a person that can only for example get 4Mb would only get 8Mb at most with this bonded service, and then they would be lucky. The service to people like myself that get close to the 20Mb region on ADSL2+ sounds great...... For others though it may be entirely pointless to even consider it.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
it would be the upload of interest to us.

currently we get 2mb up and 2MB down... getting 4mb up would be of far more interest than 4MB down.
Posted by chrysalis about 1 year ago
siege2 I am on about typical lines the mean average as reported by isp's and ofcom. My line happens to perform near the typical value but isn't why I came up with 4-6mbit figures. It is actually a mean average of 4mbit on adsl1 but since there is no mean average reported for adsl2 yet I made it 4-6mbit to assume a little boost.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Carpet - Hence why LLU is a dead end compared to FTTC. But BT won't roll out FTTC if they have to bleed all their profits from an extremely expensive rollout to other companies.
Posted by solitaire about 1 year ago
Well my parents house and mine both have 2 BT lines each (one of theirs is deactivated and is a throw back to when you could only have dialup) think this bonded line lark would be a good idea!

Also if you're like me and "Virgin" decided NOT to cable your region of the UK, then it's the best you'll get!
Posted by samperry209 about 1 year ago
it would be nice if they improved lines like mine to reasonable speeds rather then keep up the speed of places that have a good connection.

i live a long way from my exchange means i get 1mb....

i'd like 8mb but that is never gonna happen if they keep doing this..
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
who are you suggesting makes your line shorter?
Posted by PeteK about 1 year ago
@whatever2 - Perhaps he/shes suggesting BT move the exchange ;-)
Posted by samperry209 about 1 year ago
im saying i would like one exchange near my area because i live 5.1km from my exchange which is too far
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
how is that Be's fault?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Becuse the LLU companies mean that BT cannot seriously consider a FTTC cabinet rollout beyond trials; it'd cost billions and they can't justify it to the shareholders if LLU companies are going to take most of the profits.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Carpet - Hence why LLU is a dead end compared to FTTC. But BT won't roll out FTTC if they have to bleed all their profits from an extremely expensive rollout to other companies."

LOL you still day dreaming about imaginary BT services?
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Becuse the LLU companies mean that BT cannot seriously consider a FTTC cabinet rollout beyond trials; it'd cost billions and they can't justify it to the shareholders....."

Awww pity thats what happens when a company becomes private and they dont get things all their own way
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
"if LLU companies are going to take most of the profits"... instead of BT who are so good at doing things for the customer they need Ofcom for LLU to even happen...

BT are lucky they even have Openreach anymore.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Carpetburn - What, the government step in and make them surrender a good part of their profits? Wait, no, that's not usual.

Whatever2 - LLU is a massive drain on BT's resources. Why should a private company have to put up with it? It badly inhibits the sort of investment which would of brought things like 21CN years earlier, and now FTTC...
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Carpetburn - What, the government step in and make them surrender a good part of their profits? Wait, no, that's not usual."
LMAO maybe you missed the bit where the government are actually going to give them more cash rather than take it away as the babies say they cant afford the fibre roll out.
quote"Whatever2 - LLU is a massive drain on BT's resources."
Huh... What resources?
quote"Why should a private company have to put up with it?"
I agree entirely no ISP should have to pay fixed rates set by ofcom and BT
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago

quote"It badly inhibits the sort of investment which would of brought things like 21CN years earlier, and now FTTC... "
Complete carp, years ago BT said they were not going to do any form of ADSL2+, the only reason they have is to try to compete with LLU companies.
Posted by MCM999 about 1 year ago
"LLU is a massive drain on BT's resources. Why should a private company have to put up with it?" For which BT are more than adequately paid. It's not as if BT do anything for free. BT charge excessive amounts often for very little work.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
...Those rates don't do anything like cover their costs. They're a massive drag on the company.

Carpet - No, they wanted to skip beyond it, but the Government decided to go with LLU instead with a mandate that they massive amounts of time and profit to help other private enterprises entirely at their own expense.

There's no reason to help their rivals expand their network at massive cost to themselves, no. LLU is holding the UK back.

And I agree, no "LLU" ISP should have that level of access to the BT infrastructure in the first place to be paying those rates..
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
This is the LLU that BT had to be forced to offer because they didn't want to share their toys.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
And why should they have to "share their toys"? It didn't make commercial sense then, it dosn't now and it's held our broadband infrastructure back by years and lead to spotty rollouts...
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
Because the offerings were more expensive and not up to the standard that could be made available. Remember, BT didn't buy their kit, they were given it... and sat on it.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Carpet - No, they wanted to skip beyond it, but the Government decided to go with LLU instead with a mandate that they massive amounts of time and profit to help other private enterprises entirely at their own expense."

It was ofcom who decided the rules regarding LLU nothing to do with government, also without LLU BT would have an even bigger monopoly on this countrys broadband then they do already
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"And why should they have to "share their toys"?."
RUBBISH... "THEIR TOYS" Dont make me laugh half the equipment and infrastructure dates back to the days they were a private company and is equipment they as stated above basically got for nothing when they turned private... They also share NOTHING with LLU, about the only thing they share is cabling and you can blame the government for that as they would let any old tom dick or harry lay or put up their own cables. LLU companies pay rent, pay for any bandwidth and also pay for their own equipment.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
^^ opps obviously i meant "the days they were NOT a private company"
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Carpet -

And Ofcom are a government-controlled regulator.

So what they were once public. The day they turned private the government needed to take their hands off micromanaging them.

If there's to be investment in infrastructure bt BT, BT should be the major beneficiary from it or the general telecoms infrastructure won't be upgraded.

whatever2 - Our DSL broadband now is *comparatively* more expensive and slower than it was in the days without LLU.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Private companies should NOT benefit from government funding. If government are going to bail out private companies and help them push forward and develop id personally of liked to see them save Woolworths before they give BT millions.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Rather, government funding should comes with strings attached. If BT gets funding for FTTC, they should accept a USO.

Equally, they should not be forced to give space and time to the LLU leeches with no government compensation, as is the present case.

And I'm sure *you'd* rather they bail out a company with a failed business model before they invest in the future of telecoms industry.

(Bail out EUK maybe, but not the Woolworths group!)
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Personally i think if the government are to invest heavily in BTs fibre roll out then they should force them to TRUELY break up the group, maybe the government could take control of the open reach side of things and leave BT as a normal comms operator like every other phone and broadband seller in the public sector.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
"Our DSL broadband now is *comparatively* more expensive and slower than it was in the days without LLU."

Oh don't talk rubbish. Prices are no-where near what they were when BT had it under their belts.
Posted by chrysalis about 1 year ago
I dont know about LLU draining resources, but the problem for BT is LLU loses BT a shedload of money as they lose BT central revenue.
Posted by callum9999 about 1 year ago
Dawn_Falcon - I'm with talktalk and get unlimited landline calls and 8mb broadband. At the time, BT were charging roughly £45 for that - I pay £19. BT were cheaper???
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
I suggest people understand the word "comparative". i.e. broadband costs in the UK then vs in the rest of the world, and broadband costs today in UK today vs the rest of the world.

Carpet - Right. Government. So we too can have a firewall like China's!
Posted by ruskin0 about 1 year ago
LMAO I guess that means BT has blew the Fibre out the window, i seem to remember saying in a previous post that we would be wearing are wooden over coats before BT would go FTTC.

Also remember reading somewhere that this bonding idea dosnt necessarilly mean a single file will DL any quicker.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
Comparative is defined by what you compare to... you compared BT to days without LLU, not the rest of the world at the same time as well.

Shift the goalposts all you want, you can still pick holes in that point anyway.

There is also an arguement that without LLU, dsl would never have been cheap enough for mass market appeal, and thus Fibre would still be too expensive for BT to afford. Where do their priorities lie? Furthering DSL technology, or making cash?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
No, I didn't. I didn't specify, my bad. I hereb now specift I was talking in comparison with other countries.

And that LLU argument is nuts. Prices were falling. Also, BT have shareholders, and thus must make cash. They've shown they have a social agenda to further broadband rollouts, but they eed to show a profit doing so, and LLU directly impinges on that.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
Of course, it's called competition!

Your making it sound as if LLU is the only obstacle to fibre... but if you want to bet that LLU wasn't there then BT would roll it out, then do it with your own money ;) Because they'd only do it if there was an incentive, and without competition there would be little incentive.

Dont get me wrong, LLU does need certain aspects controlling, but in the same vein, BT need competition, because they lack any social responsibility without enforcement.
Posted by xrio about 1 year ago
@dustofnations

Yes same ISP bonding is counter intuitive however there is kit that lets you bond different types from different ISPs Check broadbond.com for this type of service.
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
"Also, BT have shareholders, and thus must make cash."
- and they STILL dont realize that the way to do this, is to *reduce* prices, improve services, so that many more will join up!!! (My friend did actually WANT a BT service to get cheap internet & phone, but they cared so little about 'winning her contract', that LLU got it instead...)

whatever2: please note that LLU is NON-BT... if it was not there, BT would still be 'the only cafe in town' so could do what they like, just like MS has recently been doing....
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
comnut - The can't reduce prices, because they have massive capital costs. They have mantain large parts of their exchanges at minimal prices, for example.

Whatever2 - Nobody else can afford to even consider it. That's the point: if anyone is do it on a national scale, it has to be BT, and LLU is one of the major factors preventing that.

When it comes to national infrastructure, competition can be replaced with oversight and we'd all be better off.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
No, LLU isn't the only hurdle, it's BT's decision, they may decide otherwise anyway. You wouldn't be having this conversation if LLU didn't exist because fibre wouldn't even need to be on the table.

It's very naive to think that BT will not use this as a carrot to gain back market share. If LLU was removed, there's a good chance that BT would still not go ahead because there would be no need for them to do so...
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
please pause to check the real meaning of LLU...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_loop_unbundling

BT were FORCED to do this (or be broken up) by ofcom, due to their anti-competitive practices in 2004..
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39174236,00.htm
- as a result of this, BT allowed other ISPs transparent and equal access to their network in 2006.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39220176,00.htm?r=1

Posted by kendal01 about 1 year ago
were BT not state owned at one stage of their life?
Posted by KarlAustin about 1 year ago
CB - You keep saying "let the govt. run openreach" - They did that, it was called the GPO, it led to years and years of taking money from them and no investment in infrastructure.

As for BT being given their kit - the only thing they were really given was the local-loop, the kit on the ends of it was junk and had to be replaced.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
whatever2 - You're right, it'd allready be deployed. So no, not "on the table". BT would have to agree to take on a USO before it got the gpvernment funding to do FTTC (and withdraw LLU), so...

comnut - Yes, the meaning is "starving the telecoms structure of critical investment for the benefit of a small minority". Ofcom's ruling was typically short-sighted.
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
Your joking aren't you? It wouldn't even be in the room let alone at the table. This is the company that has constantly lagged behind DSL developments. The only respite has been competition. In fact Ofcom have probably been guilty of not pushing LLU harder.

With an unequal footing, you wont get anyone else but BT looking at it because they don't have a fair share.

Bt could very well still pull the plug if they had all the balls in their court, because they will start moaning they cannot offer the services that would justify the deployment... like TV, like they did 20 years ago.

Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
the meaning is "starving the telecoms structure of critical investment for the benefit of a small minority"
Oh, so you ARE a BT stockholder!!! and having only a government officers tiny mind, just cannot believe there is anything else...
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
kendal01: yes, when it was the GPO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office_(United_Kingdom)

In 1969 it was turned into a government owned corporation, in 1981 British Telecoms was split off from that..
(see above link for details!)
Posted by kendal01 about 1 year ago
thanks for the confirmation. bt turn a profit from these alledged llu "leeches" as some people call them. if people want to bin llu and go back to the gpo days of no investment as that is what will happen then they should maybe move to a communist country??
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
kendal01 - Huh? They make a massive, eye watering loss. They have to maintain a deacent proportion of their exchange network for other people's benefits, they lose massive amounts of revenue, they have to deal with kit with different environmental tolerences (VERY expensive)...

There's a massive difference between the GPO era, where the government controlled the purse strings, and today.

Forcing LLU onto BT, that's communist. "Share". Why should they? They're a private company..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
whatever2 - No, you're the joke if you can't look at the actual statistics. BT, when left alone, have not been slow to advance. BT, when molested by the government, have been slow to advance.

comnut - No, I don't have any shares in anyone. It just happens to be true. FTTC in the UK would cost about the same as some US companies have spent on fiber optic, and yet it's not profitable for them to do it purely because of LLU - the majority of the profit would go to the leeches, not them. Helping the competition is unsmart.
Posted by kendal01 about 1 year ago
Dawn_Falcon-do you work for openreach?
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
"when left alone, have not been slow to advance. BT, when molested by the government, have been slow to advance."

Perhaps that's because they of their business practices which required regulation in order for them to be forced to actually do what they said they were doing.

LLU is not the hurdle to FTTC that BT are claiming, and it's naive to swallow that hook, line and sinker. BT are using this for leverage.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"They make a massive, eye watering loss. They have to maintain a deacent proportion of their exchange network for other people's benefits"

Complete crap as is usual from your mouth BT dont spend their own money to maintain LLU equipment.
Your accusations about LLU become more demented by the day. Have you considered a nice home and care?
Posted by kendal01 about 1 year ago
cb, have a beer and chill out. that was a bit harsh.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Harsh reading is spouting nonsense about how great BT are with un-truth.

Maintain others networks out of the kindness of their heart, pffffft yeah right of course they do.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
No, they have to take unrealistically small fees for LLU support and maintenance, right. Plus the complicating factors which have made them spent vast amounts on exchanges to accomodate non-standard LLU kit, etc.

Your pro-spam, pro-government control position is the amusing one.

kendal01 - CB brought this on himself
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"No, they have to take unrealistically small fees for LLU support and maintenance"

AS you keep spouting that in every news story how about some prove now huh?

I suspect its another mental fantasy you have.
Or just BT whinging nonsense you have read
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
It's not all good news though....
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/reviewDetail.html?id=4404

Its the lines that are the problem, not Be... why it's best to get a very short contract....
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
You mean like your fantasy that your connection doesn't depend on BT? Oh wait, it does, and I'm right as usual.

comnut - You can cancel in that sort of case. The service provided is clearly not as-advertised. Dosn't matter anout contract lenght.
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
no, MY ONE doesn't... the topic is about BE , not your Off-Topic rant..








Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"It's not all good news though....
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/reviewDetail.html?id=4404
Its the lines that are the problem, not Be... why it's best to get a very short contract...."
There support is no longer in india, i think you will find its joint uk and bulgarian based
(may be wrong on the bulgarian part, know its no longer indian that was only in the early days.)
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"You mean like your fantasy that your connection doesn't depend on BT? Oh wait, it does, and I'm right as usual."
Im still waiting for the proof BT maintain LLU equipment and make a loss doing so. The only thing LLU "NEEDS" from BT is the building to put the equipment in, and BT cant even do that right with all the breakins they had this year
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
BT had to adapt their exchanges for LLU equipment, BT has to keep the exchanges such that differing equipment works correctly in them. Not cheap.

And you are entirely dependent on BT's last mile infrastructure. This is the expensive part to roll out, and why the LLU companies needed to leech off it.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Roll out? Wasn't it already there? Or do you mean maintain?
Posted by whatever2 about 1 year ago
"Im still waiting for the proof BT maintain LLU equipment and make a loss doing so. "

I think we all might be...
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
er, the ONLY people that are 'entirely dependent on BT's last mile infrastructure' are those that use BT adsl...
The others use wireless, cable, or LLU...

If you have ever told your BT operator that you are leaving them for LLU phone and BB, you will hear them desperately saying "But we cannot take care of the line for you, if it goes wrong'..

You will simply ask the LLU operator, who has taken over the line...
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
As Somerset says, the cables have been there since the GPO laid them... In my house the connection box was 1950 vintage..
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/connection_boxes.htm

In my street, the cables go from a large 50 foot high pole to every house, and I doubt that has been touched since then or at least the 80's... not much space for a large crane..
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"BT had to adapt their exchanges for LLU equipment"

OMG LMFAO my sides.... adapt their building LOL, please tell us all what they did to ADAPT their buildings for LLU...... Ouch my sides they really hurt now... I wonder what this adapting was, throwing out a load of junk taking up space perhaps?

Dawn_Falcon you seriously need help, especialy if you think i rely on BT in any way for my broadband... I rely on them for a PHONE LINE yes, but seeing as my choices for a PHONE LINE would be BT or VM thats hardly a tricky choice.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Oh and seeing as a PHONE LINE is over a hundred pounds to have installed and i pay LINE RENTAL i FAIL to see how they lose money tieing a bit of cable to a pole or how LLU with regards to that bit of cable costs BT money, especially when i pay BT each month for Cable or as you like to put it (Infrastructure) thats 20 years old.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Comnut - The physical connections belong to BT, period. The maintenance issues are something, again, imposed on BT and make fixing LLU lines extremely expensive in admin time.

Carpetburn - So, you know about environmental tolerances of electronic equipment? No? Think it might be an idea to read about it before making yourself look a total and utter fool?

Once more, you are entirely dependent on BT's infrastructure for your broadband. Get over it.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Carpetburn - So, you know about environmental tolerances of electronic equipment?"
Oh we have moved on to the great enviromental debate.... Oh pray tell how that comes into the equation when BT need more equipment for their so called 21CN and fibre services LOL enviroment and LLU equipment affects things indeed LOL... BT you cretin have added more electronic gizmos than any comms provide in this country over the years you want to blame the small fry LLU companies for that also bwahahaha... I suggest you buy a lotto ticket see you can afford a clue
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Oh and i ask you again... What "BT broadband" infrastructure do i depend upon?? My broadband does not depend on any "BT broadband infrastructure". The bit of moldy copper from the pole to my house i pay monthly line rental for so explain again how that affects BT profits.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
So, you're comparing the requirements of kit BT have ordered, where they know the precise envrionmental tolerences with kit which is not theirs and may have widely differing tollerences? No, that dosn't fly.

Again, do some basic research on this issue, because you're sounding like a frothing idiot.

And once more that copper is BT's. You are entirely dependent on BT for broadband. Get over it. If BT refused to allow LLU providers access, which should be their right, you'd be instantly cut off.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
It's highly unlikely that LLU kit is any different from BT kit in terms of environmental specs.

eg:

Operating Environment
BT shall provide an operating environment to the standards set out in ESTI300.019 Recommendations on the conditions:
a) the average heat density of Customer Equipment within a Facility does not exceed 440W/m2;
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"
And once more that copper is BT's. You are entirely dependent on BT for broadband."

Someone doesnt understand how PART LLU broadband works and how a phone service from BT works, id like to explain but obviously educating the stupid is a waste of time.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Somerset - I'm not talking in theory. BT picked kit with very similar environmental tolerance for a reason.

No Carpet, I understand how LLU works. The final mile is still BT's. Please, get rid of everything BT in your connection. That'll leave you off the net, win win!
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Surely most kit has a similar spec now? I haven't seen anything with special requirements, have you?
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"No Carpet, I understand how LLU works. The final mile is still BT's. Please, get rid of everything BT in your connection. That'll leave you off the net, win win!"
Which final mile is BTs??? The final bit of cable that comes into my home is paid for monthly by me and is only there as i want a BT PHONE service. If i didnt id go full LLU and get rid of BT entirely. The network end of things with regards to Broadband and only broadband, my connection touches nothing of BTs that is not paid for in advance. You say you know how LLU works............
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Doesnt sound like you know how it works to me, you sound more like the mouse and trap philosophy. By now square wooden thing that stinks of cheese mouse should had learned to stay away from, instead though it still gets involved..... Or in simple terms, blabbering BT fanboy fool!
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
BT Openreach own the last mile.
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
you mean like the bank 'owns' your house(until the mortgage is paid off!!) but YOU have to maintain it????
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
The company that has the LLU, has to maintain the line from this to the house...
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
The cables from the exchange to the cabinet to the house belong to Openreach.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Right. I'm not sure why people have such an issue with that.

And Somerset, the issue is not so much kit varies as BT picked kit at one end of the spectrum because it allowed them to make minimal modifications. When LLU came in, they had to spend a LOT upgrading exchange systems.
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
But still, WHO maintains the line, when it affects customers service???

"If you have ever told your BT operator that you are leaving them for LLU phone and BB, you will hear them desperately saying 'But we cannot take care of the line for you, if it goes wrong'.."
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
I'm talking about the service that the customer gets, not CS.. >:(
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"When LLU came in, they had to spend a LOT upgrading exchange systems."

Oh my you get funier by the day (or should that be demented?)
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
CB - what did BT have to do to introduce LLU?

Please reply in grown up English!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Comnut - There's then a long and involved process inflicted on BT to maintain the lines, yes. Government inflicted, again.
Posted by comnut about 1 year ago
Somerset: FFS - READ THESE LINKS!!!!!

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39220176,00.htm?r=1

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39174236,00.htm



Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"CB - what did BT have to do to introduce LLU?"

Apart from satisfy figures on the amount of exchanges they had to offer for LLU, i cant think of much else.
They didnt install ALL the LLU equipment and they certainly didnt have to construct new buildings in which to hold it (something Dawn seems to think they did).
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
How about allocate space in exchanges and modify systems (software - £££) to start with.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"How about allocate space in exchanges and modify systems (software - £££) to start with."

How did they "allocate" this space?? Did they have to throw away equipment to allow LLU companies in or could it be there was floor space for it already?

How will they "allocate" space for 21CN updates and other things BT have in the pipeline? Im really interested how this "space" in a so called area wasnt available one minute and suddenly the next it was.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
You're right Carpet, they had to exand a lot of exchanges. This was very expensive. 21CN mostly replaces *core* equipment, not exchange.

hint: Not theorising. Read BT's financials.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
exand? expand
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Dawn - do you have names of exchanges where the building had to be expanded? Loads of space became available after strowger/crossbar/electronic equipment was removed.

Do you have a link to the details?
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
The other part was setting up Openreach and separating the different operational parts of BT.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
Somerset - Again, check BT financials. They wouldn't release a detailed breakdown for operational security reasons anyway.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Maybe cosy of separating parts of BT but doubt they extended any building for LLU. If they did can you please find some planning applications.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"Dawn - do you have names of exchanges where the building had to be expanded?"

Of course he/she doesnt its just another glorified attempt to defend BT. Not even ofcom are dumb enough to say to BT please build a big extension onto your buildings to help competitors.

Of course maybe im wrong lets wait for Dawn to rant again and not provide any evidence or link
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
I spose Dawn also thinks BT installed all the equipment for LLU companies FOR FREE once this mythical space in the exchanges was created.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon about 1 year ago
... That's precisely what they did, for Exchanges. In general, planning permission wouldn't be required unless they had to expand onto new group.If the exchange was full, Carpet, do you think they'd simply be allowed to refuse to provide LLU services? No, they were not.

One sample of where it was required: Wokingham F/2001/4180

No Carpet, they had to let the LLU companies install the equipment, using up the time of BT workers, at sub-cost rates.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
So not major building work then?
Posted by 2doorsbob about 1 year ago
bonding is a good idea for businesses close to the exchange who can't warrant the cost of fibre ..but for resi use a total waste of time who in there right minds would line bt's pockets further for multiple line rental fees ..we should have a local loop fit to carry us into the 21st century in the first place ..
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
2doorsbob - who will provide this local loop?
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
quote"No Carpet, they had to let the LLU companies install the equipment, using up the time of BT workers, at sub-cost rates."

Er so from this we get
1. They had there own people to do work thus it didnt cost BT any time to install it
2. They didnt expand buildings
3. No exchange was expanded just for LLU equipment..... Unless you can point to what should be easily found online proof building works were done to an exchange to allow LLU at BTs cost
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
But loads of systems to sort out to allow LLU and building works in exchanges.
May not have been BT people, probably contractors.
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
I very much doubt BT funded LLU in any way shape or form, doesnt make sense that BT charge fees to allow LLU operators into their exchanges and then spend money to get them up and running.

Agree any possible work was probably done by contractors, if thats the case i suspect at worse the bill was shared between BT and the LLU provider concerned.... Not paid in full by BT like little angels Dawn seems to think they are
Posted by CARPETBURN about 1 year ago
Dawns so gone in the head he/she probably believes BT also setup and funded cable broadband in this country...... Their next spout of nonsense will probably be that BT are helping H20 run cable in the sewers... Obviously they are Shot!
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.