Skip Navigation


TalkTalk warn that BT are trying to rebuild their monopoly with broadband
Monday 12 September 2011 13:01:56 by John Hunt

The commercial boss of TalkTalk has warned that BT is trying to rebuild its monopoly in the UK and is using under-par broadband technology to do this. BT are currently rolling out fibre-based broadband throughout the UK with plans to reach two thirds of the country by 2015. Only around 4 million homes are currently planned to get access to full fibre-to-the-home broadband services which will offer future proof services for many years to come. The majority of homes in BT's rollout will be connected by fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) technology which doesn't offer as fast speeds, and relies on utilising the old copper network for the final connection to the home.

TalkTalk as one of BT's competitors are always looking at how they can get out there to offer a competitive service to BT and other broadband providers, whether that be competing on price, or service. TalkTalk have advised that they would take up services from rival company Fujitsu, who with the backing of TalkTalk and also Virgin Media, are vying to become a rival wholesale operator. Earlier this year they announced that they were looking at deploying fibre-to-the-home to around £5m rural homes and businesses, but the business model seemed to rely on using BT infrastructure underlying it. This would be what is known as physical infrastructure access (PIA), a product from Openreach that gives rival operators the opportunity to rent space in BT's ducts and on BT poles. The companies involved in this rival network believe that the prices BT want to charge for access to this are too high, with it possibly being cheaper to just duplicate the ducts and poles through their own network. This is obviously bad for rivals, consumers and tax-payers all round as if PIA was cheaper, it would lead to cheaper services. With companies currently bidding for tax-payer money to help deploy broadband to rural areas, this could lead to everyone getting less for their money.

"At all times BT is thinking about how it can recover the monopoly position that it lost many years agoI don't think that is going to represent good value for the British taxpayer."

I feel it should already have been sorted. We are playing in extra time already. Publicly subsidised projects are already being awarded.

Right now BT knows what its costs are but nobody else does. I look at it from the point of view of the taxpayer and the market and none of them is well served by having a bidding process that favours one party."

David Goldie, (Commercial Director) TalkTalk Group

With the UK lagging behind other countries who are rolling out fibre, it's vital that a boost is made to ensure that in 5 years time we are not looking to spend even more money on replacing the infrastructure that has only recently been put in. Rival operators deploying FTTH could help ensure this doesn't happen, and it will probably lie in Ofcom's hands to ensure that BT's pricing is not priced excessively. BT are obviously of a different view, that they are trying to help drive broadband forward in the UK and are allowing other operators fair access, but this will likely be shown through what the final pricing for their PIA product turns out to be.

"BT has provided reciprocal wholesale access to its fibre network from the outset. This allows other operators to piggyback off our investment, while encouraging competition and the take-up of fibre services to thrive. We've also volunteered to provide additional forms of wholesale access via our ducts and poles. We expect to announce revised pricing for such access shortly."

Olivia Garfield, (Chief Executive) BT Openreach

Comments

Posted by TonyHoyle over 5 years ago
Of course they are.. and if talk talk could get a monopoly they would to. Its what companies dream of.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
More whinging about PIA pricing, of course other ISP's want something for next to nothing. TT should build their own network if they are that bothered instead of poaching off others.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Its obviously so easy for a rival to say "oh your prices are too high" without any knowledge themselves of what it costs. I wonder how much TT would be charging if the shoe was on the other foot. And why aren't TT moaning about lack of access to Virgin infrastructure? Because they are best buddies with them. Why don't they ask Virgin for access and they've got 50% of the country right there....
Posted by Timalay over 5 years ago
What a stupid statement by talk talk. It clear that the FTTC is just stepping stone for BT to get FTTH in the future.
Posted by alwall over 5 years ago
If you want to compete, build your own network.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Whilst BT does have a "monopoly" position, at least they do have to wholesale. VM, on the other hand, have a true monopoly position with 50% of households being passed by their network (which in my opinion is a significant market presence) and not having to wholesale...
If there is any organisations that has caused the UK to fall behind it is a regulator and government which doesn't encourage roll-out through abolition of fibre tax and incentivised regulatory frameworks.
Posted by scotiaman over 5 years ago
More sour grapes from Talk Talk who always want access to other people's networks on the cheap.....so they can maximise profits - for themselves.
If Talk Talk want to compete in the big boys world......build your own network !
Posted by Alchemyfire over 5 years ago
Less talk talk, more action
Posted by Bob_s2 over 5 years ago
BT are exploiting there monopoly. They have overpriced the BT duct access and if this is not resolved by December OFCOMare going to step in and set a fair price

BT are ensuring they have a monopoly with FTTC and have eliminated any competition & FTTC is killing off LLU
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Over priced compared to Europe?

No

Over priced compared to Virgin's ducts?

No

Overpriced for cheapskate competition?

Yep

Will be interesting to see what Ofcom do and what a "fair" price is.
Posted by bigbadpirate over 5 years ago
gpo built the network right? our money. not british telecom.

before maggies time.

i say it should be taken back from BT now and redistributed fairly. ;)
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
No... they bought it for a lot of money , know the facts
Posted by bigbadpirate over 5 years ago
gpo built the network right? our money. not british telecom.

before maggies time.

i say it should be taken back from BT now and redistributed fairly. ;)
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Again.. no
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
And Bob how are they eliminating any competition? A lot of FTTC is in Virgin areas, plenty of competition to be had, there are also other ISP's selling FTTC and others are more than welcome?
Posted by New_Londoner over 5 years ago
@bigbadpirate
Just a small point but I think you are overlooking the fact that it was sold to the shareholders on privitisation, with the then government taking the proceeds to fund other public sector projects.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
"I look at it from the point of view of the taxpayer and the market and none of them is well served by having a bidding process that favours one party." - No David :) you look at it from your own companies point of view and that your missing out on money, which you could do with recovering since you were stung £3m by Ofcom, you can't even bill your customers correctly!
Posted by herdwick over 5 years ago
If the PIA pricing is too high it will be cheaper for others to build an alternative network. Simples. They could put it in the right places too, after all the railway builders didn't worry about where the canal locks were.

You have to laugh at these whiners who >25 years after something was sold claim to have ownership of it. It was SOLD, get over it. It was also built from revenues not taxation.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Errr.... investors paid almost £20billion pounds for what was bought then. And that's 80s, early 90s money so a fantastic deal, current markey cap is £12.5B. I'd say Maggies government were very savvy and made a good profit, not like the NHS PFI that's been left to us the Taxpayer to pay for the next 20 years at astronomical rates by the late Labour government.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
And PIA, compare the prices with what ARCEP has required France Telecom to offer their ducts at. You'll see that the prices are very similar and duct sharing works fine over there with that price regime (page 21). Don't hear any toys being thrown out of the pram across the channel.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/wla/annexes/csmg.pdf
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
The more you read the worse it gets

"Right now BT knows what its costs are but nobody else does. I look at it from the point of view of the taxpayer and the market and none of them is well served by having a bidding process that favours one party.""

Anyone is welcome to bid for the money for rural funding, IF they've got something to bid. TalkTalk haven't - simple.
Posted by spetznaz over 5 years ago
How much do BT pay you GMAN? lol.

And as for good business from Thatcher, yeah great look what sort of broadband it has left rural areas with thanks Maggie..
Posted by Somerset over 5 years ago
Talktalk started up knowing exactly what the market was.

Broadband hadn't been invented in the Thatcher days.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Spetznaz, Rural broadband is a problem in both Germany and France too... it's not a unique problem.
Do you think that rural broadband would be any better if BT was in public hands? I think you must be too young to recall the quality of service that was provided by BT prior to privatisation.
And yes it's good business where BT provides the public coffer with more money after privatisation per annum than before.
Bad business is the £65B bill for the PFI NHS fiasco...
Posted by TGVrecord over 5 years ago
Having been round the block for a number of years I have come to the conclusion that being private or public owned company matters less than the quality of the management. For example British Rail was far more efficient than the multitude of companies who now run the system. However as one of the previous posters had pointed out BT did provide a far better service after privatisation.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
What TT's argument boils down to is that they are complaining that its not cheap enough to access another privately owned companies paid for maintained and expanded assets (some will be new and not bought 20yrs ago). Personally I think they should consider themselves lucky to be getting any access at all. If its as cheap to build your own with Fujitsu go for it although the Fujitsu show seems to have gone very quiet since it was first announced.
Posted by Bob_s2 over 5 years ago
Virgin had to pay for their network & also do not have significant market power.

OFCOMlloked at whether Virgin should have to openup their network but decide it was not the right time to do that at present as Virgin has only just moved into profit and still has a huge amount of debt to pay off.


The current situation with BT is killing off the only non cable competition which is LLU. With FTTC all the competition can do is resell it which means they cannot compete on price



Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
"Virgin had to pay for their network & also do not have significant market power." as did BT. I would argue that Virgin DO have SMP. BT don't have SMP in every single location, they do in some not others, same as Virgin. Virgin have their own private network across 50% of the country how can you say that is not SMP?

So Ofcom looked at it and by the sounds of it it should be opened up but decided to give them a bit more breathing room? So.. it IS an SMP then. Any figures to show the LLU market is suffering and everyone is jumping ship to FTTC?
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
"Virgin had to pay for their network & also do not have significant market power." as did BT. I would argue that Virgin DO have SMP. BT don't have SMP in every single location, they do in some not others, same as Virgin. Virgin have their own private network across 50% of the country how can you say that is not SMP?

So Ofcom looked at it and by the sounds of it it should be opened up but decided to give them a bit more breathing room? So.. it IS an SMP then. Any figures to show the LLU market is suffering and everyone is jumping ship to FTTC?
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Also I think your making some big assumptions on PIA there Bob. Last time I looked the only party interested was Virgin and no-one else was bothered at the time. Remember LLU was an easy win, rent space in the exchange and backhaul, drop in some DSLAM's and you have potential access to every customer at the exchange, no cable plant to install or manage, easy! Not with PIA they will have to install fibre to each home/street they wish to offer services to its a lot more costly/risky and they will still have to offer it cheap to compete with FTTC, this is just TalkTalk's hot air.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Bob, this is what i mean about OFCOMs blinkered restrictive practises. At what point does SMP occur if it isn't 50% of the population. Remember this is VMs high speed product network, not even BT has this level of penetration. And if they need to service their debt what better way than via PIA or wholesale of their own infrastructure. It's another revenue stream. PIA would be a no brainer as they just reap revenue and this would help roll-out broadband Britain...
Posted by ypmud over 5 years ago
its been a while for me to comment but honestly talk talk do you think we care i would love to see talk talk broadband go under they are shocking service providers and in all fairness bt are not overpricing pia and llu dying is another good thing it means the county will actually move forward not stay stuck in the early to mid 00's time to move on i say and let bt get on with it and offcom but out you are not helping the situation
Posted by Hubz over 5 years ago
you tell 'em Liv !
Posted by adrinux over 5 years ago
The point about the Thatcherite sell of of BT wasn't whether it was paid for, or underpriced. The point is that it was privatised as a monopoly, or damn close to one.

Mercury? ha. Even the cable companies ended up merging to try and compete with the gorilla that is BT.

Personally I'm coming around to the idea that broadband/telecoms infrastructure is just like road, rail tracks, power lines, water supply etc. It's probably better to have it nationalised or a private company limited to the infrastructure provision, and allow other companies to compete providing services on top of that.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
For me it has to be a private company, the government (any of them) ruin anything like this and cannot be trusted, if it was still in gov hands we'd be lucky to be running on 28k baud modems. Governments under invest and leave things to rot, you can't do that with private company or it goes under.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Oh no! BT is tightening it's grip on monopoly fibre-based BB by annoucing a further 114 exchanges to be upgraded... what an absolute disaster, please make them stop OFCOM!!!

Damned if they do and damned if they don't!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/13/bt_114_exchanges/
Posted by m0aur over 5 years ago
It is nice to see a few stick up for BT. Yes, they are expensive, but of the many companies I have used for LL & BB, none have been so reliable & all charge for extras like connection and caller display.
As for this new BB rollout, it is still mostly towns. Take Suffolk. The villages are once again forgotten, though Manningtree, which is recorded as the smallest town in the U.K. has slipped through. It consists of a 200 yard long main street with a few side roads. Population 900. Much smaller than the 2,500 properties and many businesses in my village.
Posted by omnius over 5 years ago
Does anyone really care what TT thinks?? they carnt even get there own house in order never mind complaining about others

anyways wasnt there something about ofcom stopping bt from rolling out fibre because of virgin? now surely they should be complaining because BT are rolling out a product that is going to make there current broudband look like dsl unless you pay mega cash for there 100meg.

OFCOM is a complete waste of time, let BT do its job and if others what to complain then let them build there own networks... now that is true competishion
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Yep just sour grapes - "We've invested a lot of money in LLU and now a rival has brought out a new product that is better than ours and we can't develop anything better ourselves as we only ride on the back of others investment <sob>"
Posted by offcs over 5 years ago
BT might have been good immediately after privatisation, but they are not now. And they are expensive. Charging £120 to reconnect an already existing line is a joke.
Everyone seems stuck on price, but the real choice is universal access or not. If BT had started the telephone system in the uk, only 70% of the population would have had a phone.
Australia has realised that it;s BB is to important to leave in the hands of commercial companies. When will it happen here?
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
When we have a government worth its salt? i.e. never
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Offcs - Australia has only realised the situation they are in, only having 0.1% of their population linked to fibre... 60% of their population live in just 8 cities. What does this tell you about the telcoms companies in Australia? Makes BT look angelic...
Posted by Alchemyfire over 5 years ago
GMAN99, as long as this country is run by old people who still refer to the radio as the wireless, then we're not going anywhere
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Does wireless work with this electrickery nonsense?
Posted by Bob_s2 over 5 years ago
Monopolies never work in the best interest of consumers and with BT outside of the Cabled areas there is largely a monopoly
The simplest solution to the problem is to require Openreach to price access to the ducting at the same price as it wants to charge other companies
Posted by Bob_s2 over 5 years ago
Quote "GMAN99, as long as this country is run by old people who still refer to the radio as the wireless, then we're not going anywhere


Seems the old people are more with it than you

I have never heard of Radio Broadband but I have heard of Wireless Broadband
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Why is there a monopoly outside of cabled areas, can no-one else offer broadband in these areas but BT?
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
TGVrecord wrote "British Rail was far more efficient..."

It depends on how you define 'efficient' - the connections were more reliable, but if that meant an onward train was delayed, there was no penalty, while now, if train A is delayed, operator of train B is fined if they keep it in the station waiting for A...

BR was significantly overstaffed in some areas.
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
m0aur wrote "charge for extras like connection and caller display."

BT only waives the Caller Display fee under certain conditions, and charges a connection fee.

I wanted a line with no 'inclusive' calls but BT don't offer it. Primus charges 6.79 inc VAT for line rental, 1899.com charges 5p connect fee to 01/02/03 call at 0p/min.
Posted by m0aur over 5 years ago
@NetGuy I was referring to companies that ride on the back of B.T. charging for switching a phone or broadband service to them, so possibly you enjoy being awkward. I did not mention call connection. It will cost me nothing to switch back to B.T.
Posted by m0aur over 5 years ago
I would not pay 5p connect fee for a call, especially landline. Calls to any network from my PAYG mobile don't even cost 5p each. Sip[gate no connection fee and 1p per min. 1899 real old hat now
Posted by NilSatisOptimum over 5 years ago
One thing I’ve learnt from BT,TT and VM, take them for what they are, fly’s hovering around donkey doo’s and willing to sell this donkey doo’s to their blind grandma.
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
m0aur - "Sipgate no connection fee and 1p per min."

If all your calls are under 5 minutes, they work out cheaper.

However, if I am on the phone for 2 hours, it still costs only 5p (plus 0p per minute!). 1899 may be old hat, but seems OK to me.

Incidentally what PAYG deal are you using, is it legacy or can anyone get it today?
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
"ride on the back of B.T. charging for switching a phone or broadband service to them, so possibly you enjoy being awkward."

wasn't intentionally awkward, but did not comprehend what connection fee you were meaning, hence assumed per-call connection.

Openreach charges the ISPs. I don't know how ISPs can absorb all the fees, but would be negative about any adding on excessive admin cost on top.
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
Openreach no doubt charges a fee for moving a customer to/from BT.

Fact that BT 'absorbs' it is because they must be making profits on various aspects of their overall service to be able to 'absorb' such costs. Plenty of the other firms offer lower charges so have lower profit margin and cannot absorb all costs.
Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
As for free Caller Display, I think that's only available as part of BT Privacy, with stipulation you make 2 calls per month.

If you don't make 2 calls, there's no doubt a penalty of nearly 3 quid, ie some amount above the cost of caller display.

Posted by NetGuy over 5 years ago
I don't know how all the other firms compare but where BT offers 'bundles' of network services at a discount, I assume Openreach does NOT offer those combinations of services as 'bundles' so other telcos cannot easily offer them at same low cost as BT, while at the same time offering lower rental and lower call costs (the main reason for people to switch).

Presumably higher charges are used by BT to help subsidise those network service bundles used by a portion of customers... If everyone used the bundled network services, BT might [need to] charge more for each bundle.
Posted by TGVrecord over 5 years ago
@ Net Guy

Your comment about train connections has very little in connection with the kind of efficiency I was thinking of! What I was thinking of is the financial efficiency. Before privatisation British Rail was considered the most cost effective operation in Europe requiring a very low subsidy. The new rail set costs far more in real terms and is outperformed by virtually all other European rail operators. Coincidentally rail travel in Britain is one of the most expensive in Europe for passengers. A kind of Lose Lose situation.
Posted by TGVrecord over 5 years ago
Also your comment about British Rail being overstaffed does not add either. Because of the multitude of TOCS and various organisation associated with the British Rail industry there are far more managers in place. However there is a definite shortage of front line staff!
Posted by TGVrecord over 5 years ago
Also your comment about British Rail being overstaffed does not add either. Because of the multitude of TOCS and various organisation associated with the British Rail industry there are far more managers in place. However there is a definite shortage of front line staff!
Posted by m0aur over 5 years ago
In the days of shoveling coal to get up steam, you could set your watch by the passing trains. In the age of computer control and shareholders to please, it's a dogs dinner. Unlike a Nationalised industry, the likes of B.R and B.T are about showing a profit, with little worry about maintaining the lines. Every link in a chain is a weak point, which probably explains the problems with the likes of TT.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
Good old Dr Beeching, deathbringer to the British Rail network...
Posted by chrysalis over 5 years ago
My view is BT retai is deliberatly under pricing infinity to kill of LLU. I am surprised there has been no media fuss made that (a) infinity costs the same as adsl at headline price and (b) its 1/5 the price per mbit.Given that BT have had to spend billions to rollout FTTC and that end users speeds are much higher, there is no logic that suggests the costs of providing ininity are the same as adsl. at the very least the price would be higher to recover the rollout investment.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Even if they were chrysalis (not sure about that myself) so what. Didn't LLU providers price there's lower than resold BT services when LLU came out? The logic of the pricing is easy in my eyes, many people already have broadband and don't want to pay much if any more for a new service, I'd love to see them charge more as prices (in general) are too low as it is, but they need a strong take up and that means low prices. BT are usually the most expensive so its a refreshing change, not for you though?
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
If that were the case VM's pricing of their cable BB would also be far too cheap. BT's prices are roughly in the same ball park... So they can compete with the company which had a monopoly on domestic 'fibre' BB!
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Can't believe we are seeing comments about BT being too cheap, the world has surely gone mad :)
Posted by NilSatisOptimum over 5 years ago
Hyperoptic the people who started BE, appear to able start fresh!
Posted by Pigmaster over 5 years ago
I can see the future!! I just wish OFCOM and other Telecom providers/ISP would all just their money into one big pot so that a nationwide infrastructure could be put into place and utilised therefore they would be no tiered and seperate netowrks, just the one.

Same should be the same for MobilePhone/Mobile Broadband cell network, if all the operators joined togehter then we would just need one cell per location instead of the current multicell setup
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
@Pigmaster my suggestion (posted quite a while ago)for BDUK money was that it should be given to local authorities to build local ducting. They could then rent the space fairly and get a return on the duct. Which in turn would allow further ducting to be built.
This would be best way to subsidise fibre roll-out without directly subsidising the telecoms. The costs then would simply be laying of fibre.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Now that is a good idea! Just create the space and let them come
Posted by Somerset over 5 years ago
So BDUK should dig up every road in the UK?
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Have they got funding to deliver BB to every road in the UK?

It would be better spent tapping into other gas/leccy/sewer works and get them to create new ducting at the same time. There's no shortage of people digging and filling holes in the roads :)
Posted by Somerset over 5 years ago
So after 100 years we might have some joined up ducting.
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
That's the current timescale for the existing ISPs!
Posted by Koppo over 5 years ago
Sorry, can't muster any sympathy for BT on this issue. As bad as TalkTalk are, BT are DELIBERATELY dragging their heels on pricing so they can achieve maximum marken penetration with Infinity before anyone else gets to play ball. I might have more time for BT teeth-gnashing if they stopped rolling out FTTC to areas that really don't need it and as the sales figures show (especially with the South Wales fiasco) really don't want it. In the meantime, hundreds of 5-10k exchanges don't even have 21cn, or a date for it. Cry me a river BT.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Are they deliberately dragging their heels? Seems that its the very companies that want to use PIA are to blame because of slow uptake on PIA trials:- http://www.itpro.co.uk/636172/hunt-urges-end-to-fibre-broadband-pia-wars
Posted by Koppo over 5 years ago
They still haven't finalised the pricing. Aren't we waiting for that to be released? Seems a bit one-sided to ask companies to sign up when they don't know what they'll have to pay just yet. BT will predictably set pricing too high, citing all sort of bollox reasons, forcing OFCOM to intervene and drag it out another year or two, which gives them that much longer to corner as much of the FTTC market with Infinity as they can. BT aren't stupid. They have it all worked out. They aren't interested in the consumers, just their bottom line and their shareholders.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Koppo, I think they released indicative pricing and then asked for trialists to see how it would work in reality to what affect that could have on the price. I think only Sky signed up and maybe one other, Virgin didn't bother not sure if that has changed or not. They are interested in consumers in the same way Virgin and TalkTalk and Sky are, they want their custom and money :)
Posted by Koppo over 5 years ago
The problem is they're interested in the wrong consumers. They persist in installing megabucks worth of kit in exchanges serving areas that are already 21cn+market 3+Virgin Media, with the predictable result that most of these people are happy with the service they already have and very few buy into the marketing double-talk that is BT Infinity. BT maintain they have a responsibility to make a profit, yet continue to gamble and try tout business from other providers, instead of obtaining business from a guaranteed customer base in those areas that can't even get ADSL2 yet.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
And which areas are these rural areas? Everyone touts business from other providers or suppliers in any business (food/insurance/tv) etc etc
Posted by themanstan over 5 years ago
@Koppo
If there are commercial opportunities by simply introducing ADSL2 at rural exchanges, then why haven't more ISPs LLU'ed?
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Exactly its much cheaper to do than that FTTC/P but it hasn't been done in many areas wonder why? :)
Posted by creakycopperline over 5 years ago
you can set your watch to which thread gmann will step in and defend his beloved BT mafia, although
TT have no room to crisize them, with their crap service and lies to customers.
Posted by pigfister over 5 years ago
@ gman 99 i think you'll find that the tax payer footed the bill for bt's monopoly, the funny thing is that is used to be run for the benefit of the ppl not corporate profits & fat cat bonuses.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
Not sure what you mean pigfister? We all paid for BT to have a monopoly? The infrastructure (which is a lot different now to what it was back then) was bought by share holders and the government got the profits from the sale so I'm not sure what you mean? Its now a business get over it
Posted by fastman over 5 years ago
it had a 3 month week leadtime for a phone in 1985 and 250,000 personnel and took ages to do anything - and no completion -- no there are 491 servcie providers in the Uk or more
Posted by Bob_s2 over 5 years ago
THe big failure of the goverernment and OFCOM has been to fail to get real competition into the network.

THe only real competition is in the cabled areas. THere is some limited competition with LLU but outside of that all the ISP;s do is re sell the BT product

With FTTC being rolled out LLU rollout has all but stopped and I expect some exchages will cease to offer LLU as the customer bases errods due to LLU. So currently we are seeing competition reduce rather than increase. It is not a good situation
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
How can you say its limited competition with LLU Bob? LLU is massive competition. And why is it up to Ofcom, they can't force the likes of BE, TalkTalk and Sky to build their own infrastructure and cable plant?

Again you talk of FTTC impacting LLU and now say LLU has stopped where is this info?

The Open Consortium is competition you keep trumpeting but where are they? Its not about nicking what BT have this should be about companies providing their own networks instead of taking others.
Posted by GMAN99 over 5 years ago
I'm not exactly sure what this consortium would even do, all ISP's would be doing it buying from them wouldn't they, so its a choice of buying resale from BT or this consortium, not much choice really, might as well use PIA themselves or stop complaining and actually build a network
Posted by iPodSlaaf over 5 years ago
2 Mbps not 2Mbps or 2mbps! 5 GB not 5GB or 5gb. A visit to this website never fails to bring a smile to my face when I see the examples of lack of knowledge and inability to spell words correctly, I realise that not everyone can have the advantage of a grammar school education as I did, but surely with auto correction available to help with spelling should stop at least some of the terribly misspelled comments that appear on this website! We changed from ADSL+2 to Infinity with BT in February this year and we have not once regretted it!
Posted by iPodSlaaf over 5 years ago
"but surely with auto correction available to help with spelling it should stop at least some of the terribly misspelled comments that appear on this website!"

The above corrects several grammatical mistake made in my previous post.
Posted by iPodSlaaf over 5 years ago
Further to my statement that in February 2011 we changed to BT Infinity and not regretted it I would like to mention the fantastic speeds we now get WITHOUT fail, on our PC's we get 38-39 Mbps downstream and 8-9 Mbps upstream, using our iPhones and iPod touch's we get 13-15 Mbps downstream and 7-8 Mbps upstream, all of our iDevices are the latest 4th generation models and I cannot say what speeds older models would achieve. My friends regularly bring their iDevices to our home so they can use our faster Internet connection!
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.