Skip Navigation
Homepage » News Archive » View News Item 4451

BT Wholesale publish pricing for BET products
Wednesday 03 November 2010 10:47:56 by Andrew Ferguson

The Openreach Broadband Enabling Technology (SHDSL) product is emerging from its trial as a live product with BT Wholesale announcing pricing for the product, that will come into effect on 25th November 2010.

For those that don't know, SHDSL is a DSL variant that can provide 1Mbps over a copper pair that is some 12km (about 7.5 miles) long and if bonding to a second pair, 2Mbps is possible over the same distance. In terms of utilising an existing copper based network, it increases the distance of what is possible and in terms of universal broadband it is another solution to add to the bag of tricks that includes fibre, satellite, fixed wireless and mobile wireless which will all be needed to meet the 2015 Universal Service Commitment.

SHDSL is itself not new, what is new is the willingness for BT Wholesale to deploy it as a solution, though the pricing is likely to put off most consumers who are thinking this may be a path to boost their existing 0.5 meg service to 2 meg. The basic connection price is £1,094+VAT, and if you want the 2 Mbps, version add £549+VAT onto the top of this. This is the pricing for just the BET part, there are also the IPStream Connect product fees which run at £6.90 a month, plus your share of the bandwidth the ISP must purchase from one of the 10 regional handover nodes. This bandwidth costs £122 per month per Mbps, and if an ISP exceeds the bandwidth they have bought then the excess is charged at up to £180 per Mbps. Doing some back of the envelope calculations, if an ISP worked on 20 users sharing 1Mbps, this would mean £6.10 per customer to give them 50Kbps permanently (16GB per month).

At around £1930 to install a 2Meg service, BET is far from cheap, but it does compare favourably with the current satellite service pricing, which can see a 2Meg service costing £200 a month, and around the £1000 mark for hardware and installation. BET will win over satellite for those using latency sensitive applications too, since its latency will be more inline with the normal ADSL based services than the round-trip time that satellite suffers. BET would be best used used for a lone property or two that are well beyond the reach of other technologies, where any full fibre or partial fibre solution would be too costly to install. The difficult area is once you get to clusters of 10 or more properties, since it may prove more sensible to explore the costs of fibre or wireless services, which ultimately offer more in terms of future bandwidth options.

The installation fee from BT Wholesale is a fixed price, with up to £5,000 of excess construction charges included in the price, but it is possible that when planning the delivery of a product that for some locations the cost to install to BT Wholesale may be above the £5,000 mark, at which point the customer may be asked to pay more. It should be said that any excess construction fees would be notified to the customer prior to the work commencing.

[ Topic: Broadband | 173 comments | link to this item ]

Comments

Posted by timmay about 1 year ago
OMG it is far too over priced! You would really have to be desperate! Moving house would probably work out cheaper.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Hmmm £1930 (Upto £5000) probably be cheaper to install fibre instead lol!
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
FFS. don't let it happen. it will set this country back another few decades, protecting the copper cabal. it is a scandal. http://media140.com/?p=252
chris
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
I am sure you can buy and lay a couple of km of fibre for less if it is over your own land, but what would you link it up to?

Costs for fibre installs in remote locations e.g. 12km from exchange are not going to be cheap.

A dozen properties and a FTTC job becomes more attractive.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
poor cornwall. It is easy to see where all their funding is going to end up.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
You can link your fibre up to anything. Mine is linked up to a wifi meshbox. BET is totally immoral and if any taxpayers money is used to implement such an obsolet solution it needs exposing publicly.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
On what basis is the Cornwall statement made?

BT has said 80 to 90% on FTTC/P with close to 50% on FTTP.

If outside that area, which would you prefer, satellite or BET?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Lets say there is a village with 20-30 people in it, wouldn't it make more sense for then to put £1000-2000 together and pay for FTTC, something similar to Rutland Telecom?
Posted by timmay about 1 year ago
BET is short term solution, something that at those costs should never be offered. Satellite again is a very poor and short term solution. Every other avenue should be explored before signing up to BET of Satellite. Hopefully Decent wireless offerings and perhaps 3G at 900Mhz will fill in the gaps, but for some the wait will be too long.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
in the small print BT said that alternatives would be used for Cornwall. This means that a chosen few business might get fibre to the home. True NGA. The rest will be fobbed off with FTTC and the rest will get BET. Protecting the copper cabal for the next generation and stiffling innovation for shareholders and fatcats. That is fine if BT do it themselves, but no public money should go into copper. It isn't NGA and is not fit for purpose. Public money is for fibre. for final third.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
well said cyberdoyle, why spend money on something which was obsolete years ago which will have to be replaced in like 5-10 years when you can spend more on something which is up-to-date and last your 100+ years.

FTTP will get rid of the digital divide altogether!
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
thanks Lego, if only the politicians could see how they are being conned - and ordinary folk are so desperate to get on the internet they will fall for it too. Its all a con, and its a scandal if public money is used for copper when fibre is better, cheaper and futureproof. Using BET will ensure large areas can be kept on copper, towns and villages will be stuck in the digital slow lane if BET is used for the rurals. The whole cabal will be shored up for longer. you are right, it will all need upgrading. what a waste.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Doing some back of the envelope calculations, if an ISP worked on 20 users sharing 1Mbps, this would mean £6.10 per customer to give them 50Kbps permanently (16GB per month).


Ok so your 1Mbps connection which you pay $1500 for is shared with everyone else, so you have payed that amount of money for 50Kbps broadband, which is no better than what you have before, correct me if im wrong. WTF is going on?!?!
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Seriously i know people will argue with this but FTTP will be done eventually, so why not get it done now?

Sure not everyone needs 100Mbps but whats stopping ISPs from offering 25, 50, 75 and 100Mbps packages. Something like join now and get free 5Mbps broadband?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
they will prob get more for free guaranteed 25Mbps broadband as people can get free upto 24Mbps broadband.

FTTP all the way needs to be done, again the government should pay for this, after all people in towns and villages have contributed to your connection.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - listen to those who understand.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Lego - the whole issue with fibre is the cost of installation, not the speed of the package.

Can you see the government paying for FTTP everywhere in the current climate?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
I know about the issue of cost, but they can afford to be wasting billions on quangos, paperwork, the EU, stupidly high salaries, the list could go on....

£2.5 billion a year is not much at all, or do you disagree?
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
and...

Nobody is forced to pay for a BET solution.
Posted by mobilebb about 1 year ago
Most of the 4Mbps and 3.6Mbps Satellite services cost nothing like £200 per month, they're more in the region of £30. Hardware + install tends to be around £500 to £1000 though.
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Good for BT portfolio but what about the punters.

Dear Mr Punter,
We appreciate your business. In recognition we created a special product for you to "taste" life in the digital world. As a "bystander" in this evolving content driven world you will be able to "watch" as the internet explodes into a feature rich tapestry of wonder. All this for a very attractive fee of £2000.

As a BT customer and rural business BET is a con pure and simple. I'll be giving my cash to support the folks who are striving to enact NGA change ouside the mind bubble of BT/Ofcom.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
On the 50Kbps - do people think that our £20 buys a dedicated 8Meg of bandwidth between house and internet? Sorry to burst bubble, but ISP's budget on 25 to 100Kbps per user at peak times.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
BT made no attempt to hide that some BET/Satellite would be used in Cornwall.

The facts started that they are looking at 80 to 90% of properties will have a fibre solution. Half of those using FTTP.

Now prices are public, then the BT competitors can now get their acts in gear and do what people are asking for...ftth for under £1000 per home.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
andrew i know its shared, and i know we dont get a dedicated 8Mbps connection :P

It's just £1,500+ for the possibility of 50Kbps. Damn £1,500+ for a 2Mb line isn't worth the bother.

I'd happily pay £5,000+ for FTTH (100Mbps) than £1,500 for 2Mbps.
Posted by Dixinormous about 1 year ago
Anyone have popcorn?
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
Remember the FTTH still means that once on the backhaul networks then the peak capacity may actually be the same as the 1/2/8/16/24 products.

So even if you have 1Gbps to the home, you might get big drops at peak time.

A case of paying more per month can often mean a better peak performance.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Lego - you might pay >£5k, would many others? Ideally installing FTTP needs lots of people close together to keep costs down.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
BT have got all the funding for Cornwall. They also own all the infrastructure. They also don't have to pay VOA tax on lighting fibre. What chance to other companies have? and also if they tell a customer they can have broadband on BET how will the customer realise they are selling their soul? and knocking a fortune off the resale value of their home or business because it will never have a decent fit for purpose connection for decades?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
BT made no secret of the fact that they would use 'alternative technologies' like BET, but it was in the small print. The headlines were fibre and NGA. The people don't tend to read the small print.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Let's find out the details of properties that end up on BET and exactly why they are.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - do you have a link to a document and the 'small print', not the press release.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
somerset, they probably wouldn't but you didn't answer my question above.... (about the £2.5bn a year)

andrew, at least the connection will be stable, backhaul can upgraded quite easily, TalkTalk do it all the time.

The most important argument is that, FTTH is future proof.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Lego - I'm OK with it, but then I don't make the decisions. Would be interesting to see costs and takeup.

cd - note only BT do wholesale solutions.
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
As a customer I want the same as everyone else, I don't pay more or have lower standards of service for electric, water or other utilities.. why then for broadband? Other utilities have a "pay as you go" model, which in BT defence is what broadband should be. Everyone should get FTTH, and then pays for what they use. Not some BET sticking plaster that is obsolete before the 1st pair is pulled.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
I know FTTH is future proof - or is believed to be.

The issue is this, do we as a nation have the money to spend now on getting FTTH to the parts of the country the commercial operators don't think they can make a profit on?

80% of UK premises with FTTP around £16bn. That last 20% will probably cost more per property, i.e. longer distance to lay/carry fibre.

Current government has effectively said no, so its just a discussion point.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
Wakeyshakey:

I would love to have mains sewage and mains gas, can I afford to pay the costs the firms want? In short to run a sewer would take so long to payback if all 10 properties near me too it that I would have paid my mortgage off first.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
OK again the cost issue again, so i will politely repeat what i said above :)

if the government can afford to be wasting billions on quangos, paperwork, the EU, stupidly high salaries, etc...

£2.5 billion a year over 10 years is not much at all, you agree?
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
UK broadband is pretty much at the forefront of pay as you go broadband, hence why finding unlimited products is hard at low cost. You use more they want you to may more or move to another provider.

Internet access with pay per minute was hugely unpopular and costly. Internet access with pure pay per MB is likely to be the same, some have tried, but for now a mixture of fixed cost recovery and bundled allowance appears to be popular.


Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
"£2.5 billion a year over 10 years is not much at all, you agree?"

It is a lot of money still, no matter how you dress, compared to perceived waste on other things it may look small.

How about a £100 annual tax on every broadband connection to finance this £2.5billion spend?

Remember any money spent by government comes from taxes in one form or another. Lib/Con decided to raise some money from TV licence, should it have been more?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
somerset, you can google for the small print. all the press releases stated 'alternative technology' would be used for the rurals.
Andrew, it wouldn't cost as much as they make out. BT charge 120 a km for soft dig. farmers can do a km in a couple of hours. As long as BT hold the country to ransom none of the private companies can compete. BT have the wayleaves etc already. its only a case of replacing old copper with new fibre. and not paying shareholders so much for a year or two.
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Andrew - same boat, got a septic and borehole. The thing is the alternative is as good as the utility offering, but there is no alternative for NGA BB. If you could buy something standalone that would do NGA in rural area then problem solved.. but hey the advancement of science where talking here is BET.. don't see my 1Gb wireless receiver anytime soon.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
£2.5bn is not much considering they could make billions from it, increased online sales, etc... At least it wouldn't be a waste of money like everything else they come up with is.

Yes a lot more should have come out of the TV license fee as BBC waste that too :P

@Cyberdoyle
Yeah BT do tend to over quote.
I do remember a report coming out that they found it was cheaper than they thought it would be, shareholders won't like that though, they only think about the short term.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - 'The project will see the vast majority of businesses gain access to fibre broadband by 2014 with speeds of up to 100Mbps widely available.' 'vast majority', seems clear to me.

So... How do 'farmers' get across roads and along pavements? In 2 hours do they lay duct with infill? What do farmers charge for wayleaves?
Posted by KarlAustin about 1 year ago
lol, "and not paying shareholders so much for a year or two". Where do I begin with that? It's shareholders money you're spending and they expect a decent return, no shareholders = no money to spend = no rollout.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
BT under Ofcom rules has to leave copper in place due to USO and requirements for a phone during power outages.

I know BT is the devil incarnate, but what is the other option? A new fibre loop company - give them 10 to 20 years they will be behaving in the same way.

More power to farmers if they can form the backbone of a workforce to lay fibre to millions of homes.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
As usual.. the blinkers come on. "Its only a case of". Well when the ducts are opened up we'll see how many other comms providers put their own fibre in to these remote areas if its so cheap to do so.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
BT over quote because you are paying for the nasties like pension deficit, layers of management and the time staff spend going to the many meetings.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Seeing BT install new fibre round here often involves unblocking ducts which ups the cost.

And it won't be farmers running new cables in BT ducts and poles.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
i feel sorry for BT sometimes, having to maintain both fibre and copper :(

Most people these days have mobile phones, would be better to scrap the copper (sell it) and put a battery in the modem to keep it powered during a power cut. Phone would connect to the modem...
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
I'm sure they could get some volunteers to help unlock the ducts, lay the duct, etc...

Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
Lets burst the myth on fibre, I can have fibre within the time it takes to run it to me.

Look at Metro Ethernet services, alas as they are designed as 1:1/dedicated services with contention at level giving you 10Mbps guaranteed at peak times the cost is beyond what most people will pay.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Lego - volunteers, are you serious? It can be a difficult complex job with specialist equipment ensuring you don't damage existing circuits.
Posted by wragby about 1 year ago
Blimey - you only need to go offline for a while to miss a huge debate going on. I was at a BT ISP Forum when they asked their Wholesale customers whether there was any interest in reselling the BET product. There was zero take up out of 70 people in the room. I wouldn't have thought anyone other than BT Retail would productise this as it it isn't worth the effort. BT Retail will only do it because of their political agenda.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
well you could use a spade to dig a trench, obviously would take longer, they are other cheaper methods than BTs methods, they always seem to choose the most expensive... Sewer pipes and/or farmers helping digging the trench, are good examples of how it could be done. You're thinking inside the box, for once think outside it....
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
"A new fibre loop company - give them 10 to 20 years they will be behaving in the same way."

Set it up as a 'non-profit organisation'? which states... " The profits of the company must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company's members."
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Given that BT use contractors and, like any telco, have to install a high reliability network do you really think farmers (are there many left) will want to dig up the road?

Sewer pipes - look at H20 and where they are at the moment.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
i mean CIC 'Community Interest Company'...
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Use existing poles and ducts? Pole outside here would be good to run fibre along, but it's leaning at 5 degrees so maybe not safe to use. Cost of replacement? Who pays?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
dig up the road? i meant at the edge of their field or on the grass next to the road (to villages)..
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Ducts/poles can be used by communities to circumvent troublespots like bridges, rivers, railways.. they allow flexibility/cost savings in the design. I believe CB has shown how mole plowing in fields is preferred. Any dealings with BT, pole sharing agreement or not will be challenging.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
And how do you get to the property or cross the road at a junction?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
your pole wouldnt need replacing, it would just need standing up correctly and filling in the gaps at the bottom with concrete or tarmac to keep it upright...
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
somerset... by magic, there is equipment that can make very thin trenches in roads, i've seen them myself used for... fibre.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
once at the village use poles.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Not convinced the CD project scales up for the majority of locations. Hope it does though.

You have to be a telco to go across public land, like Rutland Telecom.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
What would the power company charge to straighten the pole? Costs adding up.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
well the farmers a mole plowing as they call it, would be working on behalf of the telco, they could also if they wish do it at the edge of their own land if they are that generous so its not on public land...

My point is... they are more methods than what BT say to get fibre to the home and most of them are cheaper...
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
straitening the pole would be alot cheaper than replacing it...
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Clearly Virgin Media, as an example, could do more but not a lot happening if it's so easy.
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Farmers will find away round anything if they want I can assure you. A bent pole will not stop them.. There are areas of the country progressing FTTP to avoid BT ideas of super fast broadband (BET, FTTC). Wayleaves, architecture, technology, open access, etc... are all understood and there are challenges, but they are going for it. Folks can always quote shareholders, ROI etc.. till blue in the face but the fact is history shows many people got water/electric by jfdi.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
People got electricity by just doing it themselves? Sounds a bit risky
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
They used to JFDI everything even BTs original copper network. Can't remeber the exact year the copper network was initially built, 19th century?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
I know a farmer who generates his own electric, and pumps his own water. He has no mobile, and can't generate or pump his own broadband. But yes, many villages had fresh water and electric before the cities.
Also another point is the ISPs don't want BET either.
http://www.trefor.net/2010/04/20/isps-plunge-knife-into-bet-technology-digitalbritain-finalthirdfirst/
nobody wants BET who understands what it is. apart from BT shareholders.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
I don't really know what the fuss is about, they've officially made it an offering that's all. They've not scrapped the FTTC/P rollout in favour of BET, calm down people :)
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
lol at the earlier comments, that's just mud slinging, as if BT are rolling out next gen BET to Cornwall :O)

poor cornwall = lucky cornwall. I wish I was getting what they are going to get
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - Why would BT shareholders want BT to develop and sell something nobody wants?
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Some FTTP examples please.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Well today's culture is for example. £580m budget, 25% fibre tax, 30% bonuses, 30% whatever else crap they don't need, which leaves 15% to actually do the task. In the old days they JFDI a.k.a better value for money!
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
Fibre is easy to roll-out, its BT that is the problem - that is what one side wants us to believe.

Another side says Fibre is expensive and costly to roll-out, and we are only happy to do it where we envisage a ROI.

Which is true?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Both In a way...
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
both are true in a way Andrew.
Fibre is expensive for BT to roll out because it would mean killing the cash cow that is the legacy network. They will only do it in urban areas when forced. FTTC will 'do' for most punters for a while, which means they can milk the copper a bit longer. It won't do for less populated areas cos it only goes 300metres from a cab.
Fibre is easy to roll out. Its the taxes, rules and regulations that make it difficult. With a big society mindset and some common sense this could be changed.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - that's rubbish, BT proposed rolling out fibre years ago to get rid of copper. And guess what. the conservative government would not let them.

You know FTTC goes more than 300m.

What are BT forced to do?

So 60M won't do? Why not?
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
ps. we don't need 100M for remote meter reading...
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
No one really needs 100meg at the moment, but it makes sense to invest in technology for the future. By putting in fibre, yes it's a greater initial outlay, but it saves the interim cost of dotting all these cabinets with active equipment and power all over the streets that will be obsoleted in ~5 years time when these areas start to get fibre rolled out anyway. Companies should look to the long term, not short term. Once they've got a full fibre network, BT can milk that for what it's worth for years to come.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
John and cd are correct although not sure about the forced fibre comment though.

By 2020 the majority of people will need 100Mbps, BT have only been doing broadband 7-10 years and we've gone from dial-up to upto 24Mbps, so in another 10 years time with stuff like GoogleTv, etc.. Demand will shoot up!
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Why are both true, the whole solution (not just the fibre in the ground) is expensive to rollout, period.

Ask any other telco than BT for a quote and see how much it costs.

Copper delivered broadband isn't a "cash cow"
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
So far video is the only application for large amounts of data isn't it?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
If they got rid of rules, regulations and taxes it would be alot cheaper, period!

And why is it not a cash cow?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
No multitasking is the largest reason for FTTP, we have 4 computers in use online, then an xbox, on demand etc.... So multiple tasking, we are not in the days of just 1 computer in a house, loads of stuff these days are Internet enabled!
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Which rules and regulations to start with?
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
@Legolash2o I think multitasking HD/3D video will be the biggest reason to up the bandwidth in time to come. Perhaps in 10 years time we'll have autostereoscopic TV's that give us 3D images without glasses.

Virgin are on to a bit of a winner with their new TiVo box announced today which appears to set itself up as a separate cable modem so it doesn't eat into your available bandwidth for Internet. The same is not possible over copper, but would be over fibre.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Why is it lego? How are they making a load of money off copper.

The places where they will see ROI are getting FTTC/FTTC.

The places they won't see ROI aren't getting it (final third) without further funding.

Its as simple as that, that in itself debunks this copper protection myth, I know the last few 100M's are still copper with FTTC but what money are they making from that segment, how is that segment a cash cow?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
It will cost more to roll out copper to implement bet when they take the DACS off the lines to protect the cash cow. The phone network wasn't designed for voice. it is past it. period.
Fibre is cheaper than copper. The solution is pay the people currently on the dole to replace copper which has high scrap value and save all the dole money. win win.
Other telcos are happy to do it, ie vtesse, but they haven't the legacy infrastructure to update and have to pay high VOA tax. BT have no excuses left.
Posted by fibrewarrior about 1 year ago
The excess construction costs of BET means that anyone who orders the service, won't necessarily know how much they are going to pay until the engineers start work, meaning that they could get a nasty surprise. Far better to spend some time with their neighbours and investing their money in a local fibre project.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
The excess construction charges should work in an identical way to the way they do for a telephone line, i.e. if BT believes it can do the job for under £5k it will go ahead. If they thing it will cost £9k they will ask you for the £4k before going ahead.

If anyone has evidence of BT lumping people with excess construction charges without prior notification then would be very interested in seeing the evidence.

Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd - what's this cash cow you keep mentioning?

Who is going to pay these people on the dole? Why not get skilled people?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
cd, its the same old same old argument. That in the end you end up stating "Oh yeah I didn't realise their was that much to it but I'm learning".

I'm yawning again whilst saying it, but it has nothing to do with "protecting anything" its down to simple numbers, where there is a monetary gain to be made (just like any other business) BT will do the job, where there isn't they won't.

Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
If other telco's are happy to do this then why aren't they? And please don't hide behind the VOA tax, are you telling me vtesse don't put in any networks anywhere all because of the voa tax? Of course they do, they have to to survive and if the final third is a rich a picking as you make out they should be rubbing their hands with glee should they not?
Posted by spetznaz about 1 year ago
Of course other telcos wont do the job they are only interested in profitable areas, which is why the government need to put their money (if there is any left) where their mouth is.

Cut all benefits for starters and kick out all the hangers on that this last labour government have left us with, oh wait we might be breaking EU regulations *sigh*.


Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Exactly, so why should BT be any different. Any telco wants to make a profit. There are too many people that think BT owe them something for next to nothing.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
cyberdoyle, ignoring the fact that its different tech on the ends, if they offered FTTP at the same price as BET would you be interested?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
Gman99 they wouldn't do that. they are determined to protect the copper. And if they get the edges on to BET it means all the other people will remain on copper too. Holding back the entire country. Others will lay the fibre. As long as the LEPs, councils etc don't fall for this scam and give them public money to protect their cabal. If others go the way of Cornwall we are doomed. Doomed I say. ;)
Posted by Dixinormous about 1 year ago
Yeah Cornwall having more FTTP than London. The horror.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
GMan vtesse do run fibre, at high prices for big businesses. Yer average punter couldn't afford such connections. The price is inflated because vtesse have to do everything from scratch and pay high charges to BT, and the full VOA tax. BT don't, and they already own the legacy assets. instead of investing in their business they give the shareholders the profits. They are killing the golden goose and the digital economy of this country. Copper cannot deliver next generation access for the next generation. Or this one come to think of it.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Please explain this 'protect the copper'.

BT are laying fibre for every FTTC cabinet and virtually all the core voice, data and broadband network is fibre so what are you talking about?

Why is BT holding back the country?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Why will BET hold back the entire country? Most of the country is already served by something that is better than BET! Its going to be used sparingly. You keep referring to cornwall when we already know the vast majority of cornwall is getting FTTC/P?? If others go the way of cornwall its a plus.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
So now your coming around a bit cyberdoyle, you realise that vtesse do rollout fibre and pay the VOA tax, the difference is they pass this onto the business customer and they pay it, whereas you won't, you expect it for peanuts.

What has that got to do with the BT's copper cabal? Nothing.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
1) Fibre costs a lot to rollout to premises, no matter who does it.
2) Fibre costs a lot more to rollout to premises that are in remote areas and will generate less income due to less customers in that area.

Those two points are true regardless of telco or any VOA tax, even if the VOA tax didn't exist those two would be fact.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
And Vtesse don't make profits for shareholders...

FTTC for 2/3 a problem? That's real progress for the UK.

You seem to be arguing about 60M from FTTC v. more from FTTP with no explanation about requirements
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
Gman
1) copper costs a lot to roll out to premises, and BET will need more copper.
2)Fibre costs no more to roll out to remote areas than copper. It will generate more income because the person on the end of it will be able to use it for its purpose, whereas with a copper line they won't.
We will move on to a pay for what you use model similar to water and electricity soon.
Vtesse will make profits, but they will also look after their goose. Something the incumbent isn't doing. I don't hear Vtesse customers complaining but I hear millions of BT ones shrieking.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
But the copper is in place for FTTC.

How many BET premises need additional copper and probably not the full distance from customer to exchange - have you considered that?

Millions of BT customers - where, not the 2/3 getting FTTC/P.

Why do you think the model will change?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Because Vtesse don't have millions of customers?

What do you mean Vtesse will look at the goose but BT wom't? BT are the incumbent "voice" provider, if you want high speed fibre you have to pay the going rate whoever you buy from, why should BT burden a cost in these areas that won't make an ROI? Why would fibre generate more income than copper? I would expect the monthly charge to the customer to be the same or not much more, you could also argue that someone like yourself would just get one fibre feed and share it out to the village, how does that equate to more income?
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
As an exercise try provisioning a rural community network in a not spot area and try to obtain decent backhaul and you will soon see how BT holds back the UK. Excessive construction charges kill you everytime.. and you only find them out after you've placed order. How many businesses say buy something and when you've ordered we'll tell you how much it is. This country needs rid of the BT mentality.. and it's total apathy/arrogance to its paying customers.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
wakey? Go with another backhaul? C&W etc
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Try backhaul from C&W, Virgin Media, Global Crossing etc.

http://www.globalcrossing.com/enterprise/dia/dia_landing.aspx
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
cd has sorted out backhaul from VM!
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
The economic possibility of a fibre connected world seem to be lost to BT. Last mile is pretty boring stuff, the money is in the content services of tommorow. Change the business model, give everyone a decent fat pipe and deliver products and services. Folks really need to get out more and goto travel to see what other are countries doing. BT are the luddites of the digital world... and BET is the poster child. And to think the folks in Ipswich used to be some of the best brains in the world..
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Electricy, i use xx kWh and i pay for xx kWh
Water, i use xx gallons aand i pay for xx gallons
Gas, i use xx amount of gas and i pay xx for gas

Broadband, i have a 6Mb connection but i pay for a 24Mbps, hang on why should broadband be any different. If i pay per Mb i connect at then thats fine, but why should i pay for a 24Mbp connection.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Thats like paying for a 4 bedroom house but impossible to use 3 of them...
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Electricity, Water and Gas don't have an 'upto'... I'm not saying BT should pay for it but they should naturally use their profits to gradually add FTTH to houses without fibre.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Lego - because of the technology (DSL) the product is 'up to'. You don't pay for a 24M conection, you pay the same as someone who gets 24M. Quite simple.
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Access alternate fixed carrier.. how. Nobody else playing out here in the country, everything needs to go via BT. Sure can order of C&W etc.. in fact my uncle arthur might sell me a bit, but the pricing will be BT driven.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
wakey - so why aren't VM rolling out across the UK? Because digging is expensive as H20 have discovered and people won't pay more than £15/month and in many cases don't need (not want) faster broadband. Which makes it difficult for those that do want higher speeds.

Lego - BT are starting to roll out FTTH (from what would otherwise be profits?).
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Who pays for everyone getting a fat pipe wakey?

Come on lego... :) leccy water and gas don't just dwindle over distance.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
wakey - cd has radio link from VM.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Vtesse have an extensive network:

http://www.vtesse.com/service-coverage.asp
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
"Nobody else playing out here in the country" - That's not BT's fault though?
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
i know DSL is 'upto' but thats still wrong, i do pay for a 24M connection but i dont get nowhere near 6Mb. Infact a report suggests that only 17% of people get more than 5Mbps.

Yeah they are somerset but when they reach a certain amount they are going to stop.

Gman99, would be strange if leccy, water and gas did :P
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
I'm not saying BT should pay for the final third, they don't have a money tree :D

The government should invest which you all already know i think that. They can't expect BT and everyone else roll it out and yet put regulations and taxes in way.

Every other country in the world is paying for FTTH or having tax incentives... anything. UK happens to be the odd one out...
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Somerset, they are even bigger than I thought, so why aren't Vtesse rolling out fibre to homes then if its as easy and cheap as some people say?
Posted by wakeyshakey about 1 year ago
Somerset - I don't expect companies to enter the rural market here if they don't believe it works, but I also don't expect to be held at gunpoint by BT who control last mile access. Community networks are bypassing BT, and for NGA will do the same.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
and if they bypass BT, then BT lose out on money....
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
Gman, vtesse could have done cornwall. and they would have done it properly. They couldn't compete because they had to pay the full VOA tax. BT don't. So bt could do a better tender and win it. BT already have fibre all over the place in cornwall and will use it with their existing copper to deliver the USC. Vtesse would have done far more with the funding had they got the chance, then would have replicated in other counties.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
Just like 25% of the £580m fund will be spent on fibre tax :(
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Vtesse don't state VOA as an issue.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
Peter I think you will find they even went to the appeal court about VOA.http://5tth.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-review-on-fibre-tax.html
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Elsewhere says Vtesse are quering equivalent access to the BT network segment.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/09/08/242664/Vtesse-to-appeal-Cornwall39s-choice-of-BT-as-broadband.htm
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Can Vtesse offer wholesale? If not thats why they lost, nothing else
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Your not seeing the bigger picture cd. Vtesse don't offer their products as wholesale. If they won in Cornwall, Lancashire, Yorkshire etc etc their many thousands of residents would have one choice for fibre to the home. Vtesse, that's it, no-one else. Which seen as its a offering that will last for many many many years isn't acceptable and not how local councils will spend their money, customers want choice, they don't care about the wires inbetween.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Forget Cornwall and these other big tenders, why don't you ask Vtesse to deliver your fibre to your village and go up against your BT quote? I'd be interested to hear the price.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
IMHO Some of the comments above by the fibre fetishists are a long way from the facts and even further from the economic realities.

For example, could Vtesse have " done cornwall"? Well they bid I think (?) and were rejected by the customer so, irrespective of any of our personal opinions, those involved clearly decided that they did not have the best offer.

Community networks? Fine but check the history of the wi-fi community networks - how many proved capable of delivery reasonable quality of service, how many still operate?

Contd.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
VOA "fibre tax"? Neither the UK courts or EU investigation found this to be an issue.

Look at the take-up of 50Mbps on cable, which is not great to date. Clearly the people on TBB are not typical of the UK population.

I think it is really worth questionning just how many people want/need FTTH, are prepared to pay an economic price, and what evidence there is to back this up.

Contd.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
My 40Mb FTTC line can support approx 10 simultaneous HD video streams, surely that is plenty for most of us in a home environment?

The combination of the 10Mb upload make it pretty useful for many SMEs and home workers too. And bear in mind those niche businesses that need much faster speeds can already get Ethernet services at 1Gpbs if they are prepared to pay.

Many of the points posted to date can be summarised as "build it and they will come", which is fine if you're prepared to pay but not with someone else's money!
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Spot on New_Londoner, the summary of views from what I can see are:-

1) BT should be providing FTTH out of their own back pocket (last estimates were £29billion I believe?) they shouldn't be interested if they will see any of that money back or be worried about the payback time period, as the incumbent its their moral duty. The fact that they still have a large debt to pay themselves isn't an issue.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
2) Fibre will somehow save the economy and world with its rich speeds and will turn remote areas and businesses like farms into booming businesses, in fact the only thing holding back businesses in the UK is very cheap fibre.

3) Regardless of the high implementation costs and labour FTTH should cost no more than current ADSL packages, if more only £10 or so is acceptable.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
4) Their should be no usage allowance on the fibre provision

5) Once FTTH is complete to every household BT can sell the mountain of copper for £29billion, the exact cost to rollout FTTH
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Ok so the last one was tongue in cheek but I'm sure someone has mentioned it in the past.

Just because BT provides voice to most of the country why do people think they should provide FTTH at the drop of a hat. Its the biggest undertaking their network will have ever seen and they are supposed to self fund it?

If the customer (me and you) were a business and we wanted something that didn't exist as a product, the business would have to pay the development and rollout costs. Why as a residential customer (still a client) is this any different?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
No sane business is in business to give products away to residential or business users.

BT as the voice incumbent don't owe anything to anyone, they are providing the voice commitments they inherited, if you want more you have to pay?
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Notice cd does not answer when her errors are pointed out.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
sorry Peter, which particular error were you referring too? this thread is a busy one isn't it?
Gman, it won't cost £29billion. that figure was made up. just like the scrap value is made up.
By using people on the dole (many skilled workers) the cost would be a fraction of that. We pay them to do nothing, why not pay them to make the future digitalbritain?
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11685582
the future? but not on crap BET.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
1st - it doesn't work like that. Could these people start now by repairing the roads, clearing rubbish etc.?

2nd - local people can't dig along roads and pavements, it has to be a Ofcom registered telco.

3nd - only telcos will get access to poles and ducts. The 'villagers' will not be allowed to put in their own cables in/on exisiting plant. For a start they would need training, insurance etc.

contd.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
4th - copper can't be replaced with fibre currently. Phone over copper is a USO.
5th - FTTC will give 60Mb and there is no evidence that this is insufficient for the majority of premises and applications including HD video.

6th - I'm keen on community involvement on projects but know from experience that initial enthuasism from people can quickly disappear.

7th - any community project needs 24x7 support. Who do I call at 8pm on a Friday when my business connection stops.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
How much then should people on long lines contribute towards the cost of fibre if it is not economical to fund from public money?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Complete delusion, are their many skilled people on the dole capable of laying fibre and working in the BT POP's and up poles?

"it won't cost £29billion." - And this is your knowledge from working in the telco industry or you extrapolating using the way you laid fibre between your properties.

£29 billion sounds right to me, its a job like no-other, it may even be short a few billion!

Labour costs are just one factor, they aren't holding up any rollout even if your dole fantasy could work, which is obviously can't
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
I would perfectly happy with FTTC, however in the future you WILL have to upgrade to FTTH which is the point.

If the government paid for the rest of the country to get FTTC, with a FTTC cab in every villages that would be great! Then BT can naturally upgrade everyone to FTTH in their own time.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
FTTC is fine for now and for 5-10 years time.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
those aren't errors peter, they are your opinion v my opinion
1All the engineers bt laid off last year are on the dole.
2Local people can dig their own property to reduce costs and join at the garden gate.
3If the telcos don't want to use the ducts and poles they should be compulsory purchased for those that do.
4Phone over copper is old. phone over fibre is cheap and easy
5FTTC does not do well over distance. its not futureproof.
6th, agree.
7th better to call local than dehli.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
In terms of the £29bn being a made up figure, I think the Caio Report referenced numbers from the Broadband Stakeholder Group which used a model to give an estimated cost of £25bn-£30bn to delver FTTH.

I think this estimate hsa more credibility than the personal opinion of anyone posting here, me included!
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
If you broadly accept that FTTC will give sufficient bandwidth (ie except those on long lines not reachable economically on FTTC), and that we should see an upgrade path to 100Mbps over time, then whether we get delivery over copper or fibre is academic for most of us.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
"1) All the engineers bt laid off last year are on the dole."

I'd say your opinions don't mean much. Do you know what staff from which part of the business were laid off and that they are all on the dole?

Bearing in mind OR are at their busiest ever rolling out FTTC/P

Local people digging their garden will save costs? Oh come on... its getting farcical :)
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
1 - Evidence
2 - What about overhead?
3 - Please explain
4 - Needs a product to provide this
5 - FTTC is lower cost unless you have a big pot of money
7 - Linnet had a problem that had to wait until someone returned from holiday
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
there are lots of skilled workers on the dole. even if they aren't skilled they can be trained to lay fibre. new jobs created which can lead to further innovation - other countries would want those skills too.

none of our opinions mean much, so why are we here? because we care?

lincolnshire people have dug their own gardens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54170776@N07/sets/72157625017024972/show/
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
I'm questioning how accurate your opinion is.

You are saying all of the people BT laid off last year are on the dole, how could you possibly know that and that they were all capable of laying fibre and working up poles and in POP's?

You dont! :)

I'm not saying people can't dig their own gardens I'm saying how much of a cost saving is that to the overall layout, its pittance.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Despite the massive uproar all that BT have done is make this available as a product to buy for those that want it.

You can't get BET by accident nor it is the replacement for FTTC/FTTH rollout.

For these big projects like Cornwall its up to them to decide how best to spend the pot they have, if it costs £5k each to get BET out to 10 remote properties and that money can be better spent on delivering FTTC for 200 people in another area I'd expect the decision makers to make the right decision.

No-one is forcing BET down anyone's throat its there as a product to buy if you wish.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
GMAN99, I agree to what you just said, your especially correct on the statement it would be better to install an FTTC cab with serves 200 people than give each one BET.
Posted by Legolash2o about 1 year ago
If i village had 100 people in it then £5k each would be £500,000 to give each one BET for 2Mbps

They could also work together and pay £1k each and spend £100k to get upto 40Mbps FTTC.

Seems obvious and common sense for the FTTC method.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
SUrely you'd look to put in BET in specific case such as in areas where the kit is not in place for FTTC/P in the exchange, where line lengths are such that FTTC would not be viable and FTTP cost-prohibitive, or to very small groups of isolated properties?

As Gman says, it is another option which may well be welcomed by some. It will be interesting to know which service providers decide to add it to their portfolios.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
At last someone has read the 2nd paragraph of the news item I wrote, i.e. it is another thing in the bag of tricks.

One problem with community digging would be that one resident saying no to crossing their property might mess up the simplest of plans.

If FibreStream delivers the product we look forward to seeing very high speeds in some very rural places on the UK broadband speed maps.

Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
Or saying it's OK for £xxx per year.
Posted by Zarjaz about 1 year ago
I think the costs mentioned haven't been broken down fully. To enable an exchange to provide BET services, there is a rack and new tie pairs to be provided, the rack itself uses a fair bit of power, and the cards are v.expensive ( 1 card = 4X1 meg or 2X2 meg.The remote units (usually fitted in the cab hole)require copper tails, etc, etc.
Posted by herdwick about 1 year ago
Most farmers would hand the issue to their land agent who would come up with an impressive valuation of what crossing the land was worth to a fibre provider and demand his client's share of that. Witness mobile phone masts, QED.

Openreach are advertising for contract CSEs and Frames techs at a tenner an hour, presumably to meet demand. They should go to Chris' workhouse and drag some dole scroungers out to do the job gor nowt. LOL.
Posted by cyberdoyle about 1 year ago
haha Herdwick. Though dole scroungers probably wouldn't be up for it. Best to give the work to people wanting it. There are many of those on the dole too. We have to keep them anyway, so why not let them work for their wages? It makes sense to me. Training in laying and running NGA is a skill that will serve them well. Probably better than a university education. I don't think training them to do BET will be much use in the future though. Obsolete tech. etc.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.