Skip Navigation


Ofcom report on delivering video online
Thursday 12 March 2009 17:20:03 by Andrew Ferguson

Ofcom commissioned a report that looked at 'Delivering high-quality video services online' as part of the regulators remit to stay abreast of what is happening in the market areas where it regulates and ensure its regulation will be appropriate.

The report is lengthy and covers a great deal of information that has been said before but brings it all together in one place, and crucially attempts to make projections as to what the various scenario's for growth of online video and the implications of these. The report had a number of recommendations for Ofcom which are:

  • Demand for online video is growing and this growth is expected to continue, with streaming becoming the predominant method of video delivery in the future.
  • Backhaul in broadband networks is currently a bottleneck, although LLU operators can exploit economies of scale to offer additional capacity at lower cost than bitstream operators.
  • The access network may currently be a bottleneck to offering higher-quality videos, although the NGA investments expected from BT and Virgin Media show that the market is beginning to address this bottleneck.
  • Technological solutions such as multicasting and caching can limit the impact of increased traffic, although caching solutions that require more intelligent servers closer to the end user face technical challenges.
  • Business models are likely to evolve so that service providers can capture additional revenue from video services; at present, there is no clear, favoured model.

The report looks at how usage patterns of broadband users have changed from 2000 to now, and attempts to project them as far forward as 2018. This is where four scenario's are used in an attempt to model what may happen with broadband usage growth.

  1. First scenario predicts a gradual increase in online video content, i.e. a natural evolution of what is going on today.
  2. Secondly a large increase in online and on-demand TV with the bulk of users on a couple of providers, thought to be likely.
  3. Third scenario is as per the second, but a much more fragmented number of providers.
  4. The final and fourth (and perhaps worst case scenario) is that almost all TV is online and on demand.

To assess the usage impact, the most important time to consider is the busiest hour of the day, as this is when users have the least amount of capacity available to them, back in 2000 this amounted to around 5-6Kilo bits per second, and a gradual increase to the current 24Kbps (2008) was seen. Scenario 1 represents an increase to 300Kbps per household in 2018, two and three are 950Kbps and the extreme scenario suggests 2Mbps (2000Kbps) will be required.

Under the current BT Wholesale IPStream product 1Mbps of capacity costs around £80 a month, which is not cheap. In the past this has lowered slightly, but IPStream is slowly being sidelined in favour of 21CN so is now gradually rising in cost. For bitstream providers relying on BT Wholesale the Mbps cost of 21CN products will be critical. While 21CN is being rolled out the cost savings are not massive, mainly incremental, but once 21CN reaches a size where economy of scale comes into play the cost per Mbps may fall to prices closer to what LLU operators pay today.

For those who don't want to get the calculator out, the report estimates that average broadband usage over a month is 5.2GB at the end of 2008, based largely on data from Plusnet (6.75GB per month) and TalkTalk (2.5GB to 3GB), based on the scenarios this will rise to 63GB through to 140GB a month by 2018. The reality we think may be higher, as it is not just video content that is being downloaded, but games consoles are moving at a rapid pace towards downloads being the main delivery method for games which are then stored on local storage, rather than optical media. Game downloads can vary from 0.5GB through to 15GB.

The key to ensuring that video and other broadband based services do not stall, is therefore for Ofcom to ensure that BT based wholesale products have a competitive price per Mbps of backhaul capacity. Without any reductions we are looking at a cost of £100 per month to support what may be the average usage pattern by 2018. History so far has shown that Ofcom walks a tight line between upsetting BT or upsetting its competitors. A too low price from BT leaves the competitors little scope for deploying their own products such as LLU, but a price that is too high for BT means overall take-up of new products will not provide a critical mass for it to be worth competitors investing. With around 70% of the UK having a competition between BT Wholesale and LLU operators, BT is likely to reduce its prices to avoid total removal from the market in that area, but the other 30% of the UK will be reliant on careful and timely regulation from Ofcom to ensure that they not paying unfair prices.

Comments

Posted by cyberdoyle over 8 years ago
The key to ensuring that these services do not stall is to provide fibre to everyone. End Game.Every other measure is just patching and propping up an obsolete network that wasn't designed to cope with this sort of traffic.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Actually even if all copper was ripped out of the local loop, this would not on its own solve the issue of backhaul costs, since the backhaul is already fibre based.

For the main part 90% or more of people can manage a 2Mbps stream, just that with peak allocations of 24Kbps not too many can do this across the present backhaul at the same time.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
I am somewhat concerned by the use of data from Plusnet and Talk Talk. Talk Talk shape very, very heavily indeed. Plusnet are more transparent but likewise are heavily traffic managed. This both skews bandwidth consumption and their respective customer bases and is I think an underestimate - Virgin Media's average usage is nearly double that Ofcom estimate.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 8 years ago
You said it, 90% may manage it at certain times of the day, but not many can do it at the same time. It is like my old man going to the pub for a pint of beer and getting a pint glass with an inch of beer in it for the full price. The answer from the publican? We are a bit busy now, so drink it slowly sir. The fibre needs to go to the customer. that is the best way get the glass full.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Taking the beer analogy, the situation even IF you had fibre all the way to home is like this.

A 4 foot diameter pipe that the beer can travel to you down, but if there are 1000 people on the exchange all with their own 4 foot pipe, then having a backhaul that is just 8 feet in diameters, means that if more than a few people are online that peoples pints will arrive very slowly.

Pushing the fibre to the home does NOT fix backhaul issues, increasing the access speed will make things worse in fact.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 8 years ago
True, you have to fix both, that is why we need a next gen network right through and not patch ups. We need the eNdGAme
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Digital delivery of persistant content like games is something which is in deep trouble, especially due to abuse of the fact that many laws do not apply to this method of delivery.

Unless that changes, the current trends don't support a massive expansion there.
Posted by Bryan-Tansley over 8 years ago
£100 per month for TV, Forget it, I'll stick to freeview...
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
andrew, backhaul issues are resolved by ISP's buying more central pipes, but why will they want to if they aren't going to make anymore money about it? At some stage if more and more central pipes are purchased BT will have to upgrade the core, as far as I know this isn't stretched at all by any means.

Even if a core upgrade is needed its all high end routers and switches and fibre and the ability to switch at crazy speeds with crazy bandwidth is available and in use right now.
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
Everyone is always talking about faster speeds, don't get me wrong I'm on 3Mb and I'd like 10Mb but beyond that I can't say I'd really use it. What is the driver for such an increase in bandwidth, where is the "killer app" that we need it for? I can't be TV surely... we've got TV already via Sky and Freeview and they can deliver HD right now. So what's left?

For any major upgrade that needs a lot of investment someone has to make money out of it, at the moment I can't see money being made because it has no real use at the moment?
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
Also when talking about Video its not the same game as normal data. Multicasting saves a load on bandwidth and they'd almost certainly use Multicasting for delivering video online
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
@GMAN99:The driver for speeds at the customer end is probably family use. One person can get on fine with a 2Mb connection but a family of four will find it more difficult. That's especially true if it includes...
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
..HD video on demand. Although HD video can be transmitted at less than 20Mb/s a family will likely want two, or even three streams.

That's where the stress on the connection and backhaul comes from. Sure the ISPs *could* buy more capacity but it will be expensive.

Multicasting is very difficult to set up correctly :)
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
..plus multicasting won't help with true VoD and if you don't have VoD what's the point? Current broadcast technology is mature and been handling scheduled content for over sixty years.
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
Why won't multicasting help VoD just because of the "on-demand" element? Multicasting isn't easy but its not going to be the micky mouse ISP's (Talk Talk/Orange etc) setting it up it would be core providers. I agree with you tho, what we have now for TV is fine and getting better. I don't see TV via fibre rivalling Sky/Freeview not at this cost. And if TV isn't the driver for faster broadband what is?
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Report considers Multicast and linear versus non-linear I know its long but a news item can only touch on the major points.

The point on BT Centrals is that for growth in usage to happen, the cost of these must reduce as cost savings from 21CN come onstream, i.e. warning Ofcom that it should not allow BT excessive profits on back-haul.
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
Yeah but cost for centrals aside ISP's are always going to try to cram as many users down one pipe, so your always going to see a problem. ISP's are never gonna leave a pipe underutilised because some of its customers might use video at some point in the day. Even using traffic management someone's application is going to suffer from over usage of what they've bought.
Posted by jpearce64 over 8 years ago
Could someone please explain to me if whilst there is a 24kbps allowance per user at peak time how can it still possible to get speed test results that show much higher speeds, e.g. 13 Mbps, even at peak times?
Posted by Going_Digital over 8 years ago
What is needed is a better network topology. Instead of content providers having a relatively low bandwidth connection through an internet provider that then peers with others, the trouble commercial interests of carriers will always be a barrier to an efficient network design.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
The 24Kbps arises from a provider having 25,000 users assigned to 622Mbps of capacity, and as what many people do is web browsing, which is stop/start your bursts of data interleave with others.

So once more than 2000 out of the 25,000 do something like stream a 300Kbps live video then you get contention and congestion kicking in.
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
Unimpressed. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not in that document either, in particular it's not in the bits related to multicasting and/or exchange caching. Tucked away in Appendix D are details like "you'd need a new architecture for both CPE and wholesale networks" (paraphrased slightly). And they suggest BTwoolsale would be providing it.

"careful and timely regulation from Ofcom "

Tee hee.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Ofcom appear incapable of giving any answers or making any decisions at the moment.

'Light touch' regulator. Out of touch regulator more like it.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
ISTR that WBC has some provision for multicasting built-in but VoD just doesn't lend itself to it anyway.

True VoD-what would make it a killer app-is being able to watch any film or TV show made in the last 20 years whenever you want.

Multicasting can't help with that.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Quite, the only solution is bandwidth.

Re: Fibre to home, yes bitstream products it causes issues, if we were to follow the ODF unbundling model it wouldn't be such an issue. Zero bandwidth cost, dark fibre all the way.
Posted by otester over 8 years ago
BT never really lost its monopoly and now Virgin has a monopoly over the cable networks.

We will never get a good service with this current structure, a non-profit group should look after the lines and rent them to ISP's, money gained is put in a pot, when the amount required is reached, ALL of the infrastructure is upgraded together.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
'when the amount required is reached'

And how long would that take? Crazy idea!
Posted by GMAN99 over 8 years ago
No it won't AndrueC your right, for VoD it would make more sense if the content providers could host their servers in the major POP's around the country.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
GMAN - problem there is that the L2TP tunnels terminate on LNS which are not in the BT POPs, these are just LACs and LTSes so traffic still has to cross the Centrals as there's no IP endpoint in POPs.

Would need quite a conversion job.

otester - you would be in a Market 1 area I'm thinking ;)
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
"content providers" ?

Maybe you actually mean the "content delivery networks"? "Content providers" (BBC etc)have been using "content delivery network" (CDN) companies for several years; eg Akamai and more recently Level3.

The "content providers" supply their stuff to the CDNs; the CDNs get it to the broader Internerd without it costing the BBC a fortune. (L3 costs ISPs a fortune :().

Sadly the big problem for most end users is the price of bandwidth between wholesale connectivity provider (eg BT) and end user, which far exceeds the cost of getting traffic between "provider" and Internerd.
Posted by scootie over 8 years ago
o.k well the plusnet data is mis leading as last year when the data was supplied they only had usage limit packages packages on sell. ie i was on bbyw3 30gb peak time usage cap and free overnight usage and use to do 20-30gb paid for usage and 60-70gb free usage in amonth.
Posted by scootie over 8 years ago
now iam on plusnets unlimited pacakage with no FUP. yes they traffic manage but streaming is at line speed and given prioity. where virgin let you max your 10,20mb connection for no more than 10mins at peak time before thottling your whole line for the evening.
so even thoe plusnet open and honestly traffic manage they do it on a packet level and not a whole line level.
so i belive plusnets data on usage cap packages is still more relable than virgin media's usage data.
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
"Although HD video can be transmitted at less than 20Mb/s a family will likely want two, or even three streams"

A family will likely want (and pay for) more than one TV to watch these streams. Maybe they'll also pay for more than one car, maybe they'll pay for a bigger fridge, for more hot water... in general, when a multi-person household (families, sharers, whatever) uses more it expects to pay more too, and when there's more than one income, why not?

Why should broadband be an exception to "use more, pay more"?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Tv especially on demand content in the future will likely be all internet based, paying more doesnt in this case guaranteee more.... If every household wants 3x 20Mb streams its still going to be down to the providers to actually provide what people want be it if it is a pay for what you want system or not.

I find the statement of "Why should broadband be an exception to "use more, pay more"?" rather narrow minded, even with your statement about cars, hot water etc...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
I could quite easily counter with many only pay a flat rate for Water (unless they have a meter), Many pay one rate and can use their phone as much or as little as they want especially in the evenings also. Pay for what you use in broadband terms sounds all well and good, until you think about the future and the content involved. This isnt 1985 and text on a screen anymore.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Also if you are going to use a capcity charge model, why should someone wanting a HD stream of lets say 40Mb put up with it stuttering on their lets say UPTO 100Mb which only runs at 20Mb while someone with 50Mb out of that UPTO 100Mb can watch it stutter free? Pay for what you use fine in theory, pity in practice it wont work as some wouldnt even be able to use what they want due to speed restrictions. Will you be happy to pay for your capacity but not be able to do alot of FUTURE based things with it?
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Bandwidth is $5 / month / Mbps minimum for transit. Add to that the cost of getting data to the transit provider, which even for regulated wholesale dark fibre is going to be 50 quid a month. Flat rate is of course possible, but not cheap, and relies on average usage per customer being reasonable.
Posted by otester over 8 years ago
@Dixinormous

It's £80($120) / month / per Mbps over here lol because of BT.

So a dedicated (unlimited) 100Mbps would cost £8000($12000) under BT's monopoly.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
for once I agree with the article written, I am glad TBB has recognised the price per mbit issue is a serious one.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
Also to add I remember reading VM's average usage per customer was just under 10 gig per month, if this is true then it seems odd ofcom ignored VM's figures for their calculations and as someone else has already pointed out plusnet is a low user dominated isp so the average figures are skewed somewhat.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
in response to c_j the answer is a shift of costs. Currently to keep port costs down (so takeup is high) burst speed is subsidised by high utilisation costs, the only logical way to bring down the per mbit cost is to charge more for high speed ports so as such put more emphasis on paying for burst. You could keep low speed ports cheap eg. 2mbit but 8mbit and beyond would have a premium price, and this can be used to offset reduced utilisation revenue for BT.
Posted by Noct over 8 years ago
Lets face it, a lot of this high speed content stuff is a nice touch... but hardly essential for the masses. As times get harder and people start tightening their belt, the whole model is going to change.

I think major investment will soon stall and it'll be a case of "Just enough profit to stay in business"... not just in this are but all products. It's started already, just look at how much you can get TV's and Sofas for now compared to the rip off prices before
Posted by michaels_perry over 8 years ago
Your 'headline' quote that "Everyone who has broadband will have by now looked at video online" is just not true!
Ours is so slow as to make viewing video on-line a complete waste of time. I pay for an 'up to 8 Mbps' service but get less than 2.4 Mbps, often under 1 Mbps. That's too slow to watch video. Even a Ubuntu iso can take almost an hour at times! Why? Because I live in a rural area with poor old overhead lines running the 2 miles from the nearest exchange. Optical fibre will help, but we're in 'Cinderella land' outside of a town so we wont be getting it anytime soon!
Posted by mikeblogs over 8 years ago
Double check - BT WBC is stating indicative bandwidth at £80 per Mbits - monthly peak hour capacity cost.

Analsys Mason - as ISPs serve us on 1Gbps as opposed to 100Mbps pipes, then by 2018 we will be paying less than £10 per Mbits monthly peak hour capacity.

I can just about see (maybe) that in LLU areas but not in market 3!

Crucial issue this - am I missing something?
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
No, shouldn't be that amazing that in the course of 9 - 10 years the costs should drop in that manner. The present wholesale cost of bandwidth over IPStream is very high.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 8 years ago
I will repeat what i said earlier, build the next generation network now, fat pipes from every home and business right through the country. £28 billion but worth every penny. No bottlenecks anywhere. Unlimlimited access through the fibre. What a great investment, it would return 10fold what was put into it. Unlike the bankers. (deleted the W) Watch innovation grow in ICT and watch Ukplc rise from the ashes that were once the industrial revolution to become a world leader once more.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Lets face it, a lot of this high speed content stuff is a nice touch... but hardly essential for the masses."

It will be in the future, things like standard def video will basically not exist 10 years from now. Why you people cant get it the net becomes more media and feature rich by the day i do not know. 10 years ago your wouldnt of needed UPTO 8Mb broadband for anything at all and 512K was more than fast enough for everything, that is not the case today. CONT
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The same goes for the future when rubbish UPTO 8Mb wont cut it. It doesnt cut it now, i couldnt live with UPTO 8Mb running at around an country average 4Mb, id drift into a coma waiting to download movie content from the likes of apple or MS live (both can easily clock in at a 2gig download). My latest sabayon distro is also regularly updated now and is a dvd in size. Even just a 250Mb file from iplayer would do my head in waiting the 10 mins or so it roughly takes (or atleast based on quick maths roughly takes at 4Mb).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
If you dont want the speed thats fine, pay per minute dial up is still available for you, me personally ill pass thanks.

My god ive even just realised how long just updates like SP3 in FULL would take and stuff available from MS technet and my subscription.... Maybe it comes down to how serious people use the Net? If you dont use it seriously then without being rude you have no clue why speed is needed.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Your 'headline' quote that "Everyone who has broadband will have by now looked at video online" is just not true!"
Er yes it is i bet at some point even you have looked at a website with shockwave type video, even unintentionally. This site even has a video section.
Quote"Ours is so slow as to make viewing video on-line a complete waste of time. I pay for an 'up to 8 Mbps' service but get less than 2.4 Mbps, often under 1 Mbps. That's too slow to watch video."
2.4Mb is plenty to watch stuff like youtube content, if you cant view that theres something wrong with your line or connection.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
"2.4Mb is plenty to watch stuff like youtube content". Assuming no backhaul issues (hah, hah) it's actually considered 'public broadcasting quality' by some channels.

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/satellite_tv_bit_rates.php

Then again that's down to Astra 2D and politics. When you're only up against the laws of physics apparently bandwidth is less of a problem:

http://dtt.me.uk/
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
..but it depends on the content almost as much as anything else. More bandwidth generally seems to mean more flexibility. ITV HD spend most of their time broadcasting a high-definition black screen with some white writing on it. I bet you can view that with an analogue modem connection :D
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
"standard def video will basically not exist 10 years from now"

You mean like how previews of books don't exist? Right.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
paying per GB used fixes the economics and the backhaul issues. It doesn't cost any more to provide backhaul to a 1M link or a 100M link if, as the article says, you're only providing less than 50k in the first place.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
@herwick:Yup. That would be the technical solution. Stick a meter on it like we do with electricity and gas. Personally I'd favour an uncharged band (up to 2Mb/s should be fine right now) and perhaps a cap with boost button to avoid getting charged too much (maybe I only normally want up to 8Mb and will manually choose when to get the extra 5Mb my connection allows).

..nice idea technically but too complicated for the general public I fear.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
If you mean by "fixed", "discourage usage", yes. You can be that, for example, kids usage of the internet will plumet in and such scenario since their parents won't let them use it much. Oops, you just massively widened the digital divide. And that's only one consequence.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
simple choice really, either pay for what you use or stick with a "tragedy of the commons" situation like we have now where high contention is used to deliver the price point and the quality inevitably matches it. Want more, pay more, like c_j says.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
" No bottlenecks anywhere." - lack of understanding here, the total traffic at LINX is equivalent to about 4100 circuits of 100 Mbits/s so if you think there'll be no bottlenecks with fibre prepare to be surprised.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
That's a simplistic view, Herdwick, and you're trying to force an extremely unpopular - worldwide - pricing model onto everyone.
Posted by mikeblogs over 8 years ago
This £80 to £8 per Mbps peak hour charge in 10 years still looks too good to be true. To power those 1Ge channels, and maintaining the boxes to run at those speeds, looks tight. Is the core till ok? and the links to the internet itself? The report is suggesting I can get 10 times my current peak hour usage for the same price! Why no party?
Posted by otester over 8 years ago
Get rid of the BT monopoly, that should solve the problems.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
BT monopoly on what?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
The last mile in many areas. Which, um, isn't the problem, otester.
Posted by otester over 8 years ago
For example the high costs they charge for back hauling and all the lines.

BT should be in the same position as any other ISP.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Yes, they should. They should't have to provide others with access to their infrastructure. Glad some people see the light.

(You can't mean BT as an ISP, because they have the same rates from the rest of the group for backhaul etc. as other ISP's)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Get rid of the BT monopoly, that should solve the problems."

Indeed it would, there wouldnt be any talk about this pay for what you use nonsense than even, the market would become more like other utilities have done with hundreds all trying to get your trade for the cheapest price. The closest we have to that in broadband terms is LLU and the eventual (HOPEFULLY) third party fibre solutions. I certainly wont be rushing to sign up to BT fibre and the guaranteed limitations in some form that will come with it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Oh and Dawn... Standard Def TV etc will not exist in 10 years time. The BBC already are talking about some channels becoming HD on freeview. In ten years nobody will want standard def video especially with advances in screen technology, I cant speak for you but most people nowadays and in 10 years wont have a 14inch CRT screen and will instead want content to match the quality of the screen technology they own. 3D screens are another possibility but personally i think that will go the way of the dodo like the old blue and red 3D before it did
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
There are already a great amount of fibre backbones, what do people think firms like Thus and C&W make their money from?

Sacking BT might solve things, but then it might make things worse. How many countries have succeeded with a not for profit fibre loop infrastructure across the country?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Carpet, not *broadcast* standard def, media files at "standard def". A lot of the time you don't /need/ HD. See: Youtube's video resoloution.

And again, thanks for agreeing with my position on BT being forced into an uncompetitive position.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Youtube video even the newer stuff with a HD button is not anywhere near real HD, it isnt even 1000k per second and the res is nowhere near HD. Heck the frame rate in some cases doesnt even match that of SD material (25fps or 29.97fps)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago

If you want to see stuff that is basically HD (though still could be argued isnt as the codec used is lossy) then look at...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx
and
http://www.apple.com/trailers/#section=justhd
to get an idea of file size... Oh and i in no way agree BT are forced into an uncompetitive position.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Andrew is right in one respect getting shot of BT may or may not solve issues.... The problem is it will never happen so there is no way to know if things would be better or not. One thing is for certain there are plenty of internet services in other areas of the world far better than what we have in the UK which are NOT effectively ruled by one organisation, cost less and give the customer much more.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Carpet, correct, most of the online video from sites like YouTube dosn't need massively fast broadband. That's my point.

And yes, Carpet, in the major 10 cities. Take one step outside, and you can't get BB worth anything.

And right, BT have been forced into a poisition which has crippled their ability to fund the sort of expansion the core networks need. If they were uncompetitive, at least something might be done.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
A great many of the 'better' internet services are actually a closed choice, i.e. you take that providers service and no-one elses.

The grass is always greener very much applies to peoples views, from limited travel and talk to people things are not as great as they sometimes seem. 1Gbps is cool, but if the provider has 0.5 million customers and only 20Gbps of outbound capacity to peers then it must be fun at peak times.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"And right, BT have been forced into a poisition which has crippled their ability to fund the sort of expansion the core networks need. If they were uncompetitive, at least something might be done."

Maybe they shouldnt had privatised thereself in the first place if they dont have the cash to update things.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
I don't think they privatised themselves...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I don't think they privatised themselves... "

Doesnt matter they are a private company that wants my taxes and government help to provide their next throttled to death nonsense.

I fail to see why my taxes should help them and when they bring their new services to me i then have to pay again..... Oh wait its BT so that actually makes sense
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
CB - what's your plan to rollout higher speeds?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
CB - Um? No, they only have to negociate with the government because unless they get approval for their actions, they can't do a lot of things which other private companies can do! You don't pay them a penny in tax, and their FTTC rollout dosn't involve tax money either.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
I agree with Dawn here, and while we're at it let's remove BT's special arrangements so that they pay the same business rates as other companies on their network assets instead of the present 1/5th of others (2% vs up to 10%)
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Small change compared to them being able to save via control of their own networks.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"CB - what's your plan to rollout higher speeds?"

Well firstly if the government are to give my taxes to BT how about they do it fairly and also give the same amounts to other comms providers to roll out a service.

I wonder are companies like Kingston (Kcomm) likely to get a fat pile of cash to fibre their area?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"FTTC rollout dosn't involve tax money either."

If BT take money from the government to fibre any part of the country perhaps you could tell us where the government cash will come from.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I agree with Dawn here, and while we're at it let's remove BT's special arrangements so that they pay the same business rates as other companies on their network assets instead of the present 1/5th of others (2% vs up to 10%)"

Opps that will upset the BT faithful, them pay for something... Ouch i can feel their pain already.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.