Skip Navigation


More information emerges on Erbistock £500,000 broadband
Wednesday 08 September 2010 21:23:52 by Andrew Ferguson

We recently reported that BT had quoted over £0.5m to bring VDSL2 to Erbistock whilst rival Rutland Telecom was offering to do the job for tenth of the cost. A BT quote published on eWeek Europe suggests that the £500,000 was the highest figure from a number of options.

"My understanding is that the £500,000 plus figure was provided as one of a number of options, and it was the most expensive option as it meant building an entirely new copper network in area, which would have meant major civil engineering works [..] That figure was the initial figure given, but there were also significantly cheaper options. We are still exploring alternative solutions for the area [..] With Rutland, they are not obliged to wholesale their service like BT is. So they can therefore guarantee a return on their investment, because they effectively create a local monopoly. But for us it is more of a challenge, as we can’t guarantee our retail arm will benefit from the investment."

BT spokesman (quote from eWeek)

So it seems the original figure was for a complete rebuild of the copper network, which probably meant re-locating telegraph poles, new ducting and probably thicker copper cable that is now standard. Quotes for the other options, which we presume included a FTTC style arrangement as Rutland Telecom are planning are not available, so a like-for-like comparison is difficult.

Comments

Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
BT speaking utter rubbish. They earn money from other providers reselling broadband. It is not like they give it away for free if not sold by BT retail.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well I can understand the reason behind the figure now but not providing a whole new copper network? Surely if its brand new and just for broadband you'd make it fibre anyway, there may be some issues around the telephony side in terms of powering the phones in the event of a power failure (I know these mini-UPS's exist) but all of this must have been trialled with their FTTH trials? Why not quote for all fibre?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Bwahahaha BT spokesman attempts to peddle Uni-Cycle backwards LOL
Read all about it
LOL
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
When building a whole new network the cost difference between fibre and copper would be insignificant. NO new copper networks should be build now as they will be out-of-date before built and will need replacing/upgrading before the initial investment has been recovered. Stupid BT.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
That's what I don't get timmay, why copper. Maybe we still don't have all the story but it does seem odd
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Its obviously just a excuse (a very poor one) to try and justify the difference in quotes from a spokes person that obviously has no real idea (STILL) why it was 10 times the amount of another company.
Err it was expensive because errr we were going to rebuild this errr out of date tech errr when we could err of installed errr something better errr (FOOT MOUTH, RUN)
Posted by Gamerwillz over 6 years ago
"it meant building an entirely new copper network".... Why, oh why? What about fibre optic? Move on to the future, BT!!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Hell even if that were true we wouldnt get any idea or quote from any other company, unless that spokesman is trying to tell us they would had allowed Rutland to rip out all of BTs old stuff and replace it with new and better cable. Dont think that would happen, and he then has the nerve to call them a monopoly.
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
In other words BT would do far more work than Rutland would. No brainer why they'd charge more then. Until we see actual documents then we can't say anything more than this.
Posted by rasczak over 6 years ago
The fact is that no-one on this site has any real idea why the quotes are so different, we can all speculate, and of course some will put their known bias and hatred to make 2+2=5 to suit their agenda, but unless both BT and Rutland publicly supply full information as to what equipment, services and third party access their quotes provide, then we cannot say for certain either way.
Posted by rasczak over 6 years ago
As to building a new copper loop, well if BT are talking about providing a whole new exchange locally to the area, and then have to provide all their Wholesale and Openreach products, then a copper network is needed. How else can Joe Cherry-Picker provide a voice only service over WLR3 and undercut BT ? How exactly would I plug my DECT base station into a fibre terminal ?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"The fact is that no-one on this site has any real idea why the quotes are so different"

Neither does their own spokesman by the sounds of it, calling a company a monopoly, and babbling on about BTs building a new network oh the irony in that. You would never get a like for like price compare as i said unless BT were willing to allow Rutland to rip out old BT cables (I assume if this babbling nonsense is true part of the cost would be ripping out old stuff?)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
The monopoly bit probably means that eg. you cannot have Sky Broadband (part of a Sky package) with Rutland Telecom whereas you can with BT.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
^ Agreed, Rutland wouldn't let anyone in, just as Virgin wouldn't
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
does anyone know if the exchange in question is currently broadband enabled? and if 21C enabled?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
No, Market 1.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/WNBOD

Plus lots of overhead.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"^ Agreed, Rutland wouldn't let anyone in, just as Virgin wouldn't"

So how can the muppet even pretend their price was a fair quote when another company can not even give a quote to do the same work???
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
It almost sounds like they interviewed BT PR god New_Londoner.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
"How exactly would I plug my DECT base station into a fibre terminal ? "

How much detail do you want? At a trivial level it'd be conceptually similar to using a DECT phone on an ISDN line; not rocket science, just needs some magick in the wall socket to handle the necessary transmogrifications. It's perfectly possible technically, although BT may well be unable/unwilling to deliver or sell it.

Go read about Verizon FIOS to see how others do it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I dont know why someone would want to build a brand NEW copper network when fibre optics would be better can would be cheaper. Stupid BT, i wont what over options they gave.
Posted by rasczak over 6 years ago
c_j_, I know that it is technically possible to do the conversion locally at the premises rather than the exchange as would be done just now. That may be what Rutland would be doing as they would be permitted to do so. BT don't have that luxury, they have to provide services that can be wholesaled out, this may necessitate copper to provide those services. Yes a full fibre rollout would certainly be no more expensive than a full copper rollout, if you are only doing a partial fibre rollout, then the copper is still needed.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Building a new /Copper/ network would be daft, I agree. I'd also like to know what the other, cheaper, options are though.

I can well believe that multiple options were offered - that would be part of a normal quotation process. I can also believe that certain people chose to highlight the most expensive of those when talking to the press.

CB is not alone in having an anti-BT agenda.

But we're still short of a lot of facts and I doubt we'll get much more.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Rutland is using a FTTC arrangement, whereby the copper from street cabinet to home stays in place and phones work as now. Just that it appears it will be a Rutland phone/broadband connection, i.e. FTTC equivalent of full LLU.
Posted by KarlAustin over 6 years ago
1) timmay - There's a lot more margin at retail than wholesale, so you can charge less capex, that's just standard business sense.

2) The copper - as others have said if it were for a whole new exchange then they have to be able to provide the full suite of wholesale services, so that means new copper. Otherwise you'd all be moaning that BT had locked other providers out.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
But they wouldn't need a new exhange, they can just have FTTC cabinets like Rutland telecom did, it acted like a "mini-exchange" and was way much cheaper.

It would be a stupid idea to build a brand new exchange just for 80 houses.
Posted by KarlAustin over 6 years ago
Arghhh.. if you read the statement from BT, they were given several options, of which the 500k was the most expensive and won't have been for a relatively simple FTTC setup, not if they were deploying new copper plant.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I did read the quote.....
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Can anyone find the cabinet on Google Maps?
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
@ Northwind learn to drive then.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Breaking news - migration of customers to different exchange is an option.

News from BT just now and am writing up.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^^ Breaking news its equally as funny as this..... Suddenly the copper in that area is fine doesnt need an "entirely new copper network" and can at the least deal with ADSL
They really need to find the mute button on people they wheel out for statements.
Posted by idudson over 6 years ago
The 2001 cenus shows Erbistock as having a population of 409. Perhaps BT thought it might be upto 550 now. i.e 550 x £1000 grant per household from Welsh Government = £550,000.
Simple (tweet)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Oh the irony, they really do want that figure
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.