High Cost of Converting UK To High-Speed Broadband 268
Smivs notes a BBC report on a government study toting up the high cost of converting the UK to high speed broadband, which could exceed £28.8 B ($52.5 B). The options examined range from fiber to the neighborhood, providing 30-100 Mbps connections for a total cost of £5.1 B ($9.3 B), up to individual fiber to the home offering 1 Gbps to each household at a cost of £28.8 B. England's rural areas could pose tough choices. In the lowest-cost, fiber-to-the-neighborhood scenario, "The [group] estimates that getting fiber to the cabinets near the first 58% of households could cost about £1.9 B. The next 26% would cost about £1.4 B and the final 16% would cost £1.8 B."
Just do it, already. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm getting 160kbps on my ADSL connection, and it sucks. Roll me out some fibre, please...
Re:Just do it, already. (Score:5, Funny)
You think you got it bad. Out in Dibley the Vicar can barely get 56K and that's only if the local sheep herder is not out shagging his sheep and wankering with the lines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello, American.
Re: (Score:2)
But PBS is educational television. That's how we know over here that Britain is populated by quirky but lovable eccentrics.
I'd vote for the Hon. John Hacker for President in a heartbeat as long as he had Sir Humphrey as his chief of staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just do it, already. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
paid for satellite with Sky (there might be a few analog boxes left out there, but I think all new ones use digital signals)
You don't need to pay Sky - most of the channels on Astra 28.2E and Eurobird 28.5E (which are where Sky dishes are pointing) are transmitted in the clear and can be picked up with any DVB-S decoder with no subscription. If you want a freeview style off-the-shelf solution then buy a freesat box [freesat.co.uk], otherwise get any random DVB-S receiver (I use a MythTV system with a Hauppauge Nova-S-Plus card).
I don't think there are any British analogue satellite channels any more - not for a good few years.
Just about every new TV comes with support for Freeview
Sadly there still
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because some people might want to buy them who already own set top boxes?
Why would you want a PAL tuner in a TV that is plugged into a set top box, given that the STB should be connected by SCART, not UHF...
Who cares, it's not up to the government to stop people buying obsolete things.
Actually, it is part of the government's job to stop companies misleading people into buying stuff that will very soon be useless. At the very least they should mandate that big "This TV will not be able to receive broadcast TV in a few months" stickers be put on them. Not everyone is well informed about the current state of the digital switchover - I imagine that quite a f
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you have an old video recorder and piles and piles of tapes. (OK, the recorder might have scart too, but some equipment doesn't...)
It'd have to be *very* old to not have a composite output...
But in any case, even though there are a few (extremely nichÃ) uses, there's no good reason not to mandate a warning label.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the obsolescence is a result of a government action, then it is more then appropriate for them to require a sticker that says Because of our action, this will be useless in 1 year or whatever.
In the case of HD-DVD, yes, let the market play the game. Let them set the rules. But when the market's rules are superseded by government intervention, it is only proper that the government require warnings to be in place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know the TVs being sold don't have SCART? Pretty every TV I've seen sold in the UK in the last ten years does
So why do you need the soon to be obsolete tuner? May as well just remove the tuner from the TV - saves cost and reduces confusion.
To be honest, I think TVs with integrated tuners will go the way of the dinosaur within a few years anyway - no point in paying for an integrated DVB-T tuner when you are just going to use the TV to display the output of your PVR or DVB-S/DVB-C receiver.
Hmm, maybe the government should put stickers on Linux machines to say "this machine can't run Windows software" too.
A Linux machine is just as capable as a Windows machine, even though it may not run the same software and that isn't something
Re:Just do it, already. (Score:4, Informative)
Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there are distributed systems that have pieces all over the place. I once worked on a system that had printers in all of their local offices and sent out batch jobs all over the World. Even with today's fast everything, things would bog down.
But yeah, for just internet surfing, I agree with you.
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses involved in delivery of digital content? A lot of the big TV names in the UK are offering on demand streaming video via the internet (BBCi, 4OD, ITV, Sky and Virgin). They're now starting to trial streaming of HD content, but with the lack of high speed connection it's not really a viable option for most people, and with HD devices starting to become more popular, pretty soon most people are going to want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses involved in delivery of digital content?
Right, so what you're saying is that existing business may not benefit that much from fatter pipes, but new businesses can spring up (or existing business can diversify) that use them to deliver content that was previously impossible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not just those businesses. The company I work for has a distributed workforce, but only has a thin pipe to the main server because that's all that's available at realistic cost (it's only been about a year that broadband has been available there at all). Waiting 30 seconds to download a file? Pah! At busy times I can wait a couple of minutes just to open a folder. That means that instead of working live on the server, I work on local copies of all files and up- and download them in batches, which leads to b
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate the problem, but for 100 quid a month you could colocate a server somewhere with a real pipe. That way at least, everyone could use it at the maximum speed of their broadband rather than being limited by the somewhat pathetic upstream speed on your ADSL connection.
Of course that might not work so well at your office if the server really has to be located in your HQ. In that case, some form of bonding multiple ADSL lines would help a lot. I know Andrews and Arnolds offer this. Other good ISPs pr
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:4, Funny)
The BBC iPlayer already offers TV shows in HD and my "measily" 4mb ADSL connection handles it absolutely fine, even when others in the house are also browsing the web etc.
I'd love to brag about having a 100mb connection as much as anyone else who reads slashdot, but I can't really say my life suffers much from not having one.
Some of us can't even get 2mbps. (Score:2)
Which kinda makes using BBC iPlayer there impossible. For me on 2mbps though, its fine.
Re:Some of us can't even get 2mbps. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but that's totally wrong. Although you CAN stream low quality versions over the web, BBC iPlayer is PRIMARILY a peer to peer content delivery service. You can download programmes using the iPlayer download manager and you can even watch them totally offline if you want to. You don't need a fast broadband connection at all. If you want you can queue a load of stuff to download overnight or while you're at work.
So, far from "impossible" as you say - the only thing you don't get are the low quality online versions, which is NOT what iPlayer is all about.
I'm feel sorry now that people are seeing the low quality online videos on the iPlayer website and thinking that they're using iPlayer! I hope everyone realises the extra quality you can get when you download the full resolution version using the iPlayer software.
BBC iPlayer (Flash) stops streaming when paused (Score:2)
Sorry I didn't explain that well in the original post, but since I mentioned streaming from their website and not P2P, I would've thought it was bleeding obvious.
He can't download the full resolution using the softwar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Use the get_iplayer [linuxcentre.net] script to download stuff from iPlayer. Something like: ./get_iplayer --html bbc.html && konqueror bbc.html ./get_iplayer --get 123
(Then look at the index numbers for the program you want)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Any other ideas?
I did have the idea of trying to download the actual stream that iPlayer uses, but it seems the streams are DRM protected MP4 files and don't play outside of the player.
Brick wall. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're on Linux or Mac, where there's no peer to peer software available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_iPlayer). Please do some basic fact checking before posting, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
what the bbc iplayer offers is not HD... it's a highly artifacted h264 stream at a ~512 resolution, try watching it on a large HDTV and you'll see.
So basically (Score:2)
you want me to fund all those companies who want to saddle me with DRM?
Really, what everyday businesses need this?
I am not sure how it is in the UK but in America the largest number of people employed are employed by small businesses. This whole idea of "must have bigger pipes" looks like support for content providers who rarely if ever are small businesses. Worse these usually are the same companies using DRM and copyright laws as a hammer across the world.
I look at it this way, if the costs are to be tak
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of business needs a really fat pipe to prosper?
First thing that came to mind was Pr0n.
and as we are often told, Tis better to GIVE than RECEIVE!!
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in a UK satellite office, for a US based organisation. We have a VPN to the US servers, tunnelled over the internet. A faster internet connection could halve the time it takes me to do an Subversion update. It could halve the time it takes me to get a large trace file needed to solve a customer's problem. And it would make me less frustrated. All of these mean more productivity.
However, TFA is talking about household internet.
I can think of two ways businesses can benefit.
Firstly, employers of home workers, for the same reasons as office workers benefit.
Secondly, businesses that stand to gain from this are ones that are feeding rich content to home Internet users. Whether it's ad-supported Flash games, e-commerce sites with lots of supporting movies/sounds/images, or retailers of online content (e.g. iTunes), the faster your customer's pipe, the more enjoyable their experience becomes, and the more they're likely to spend (or gain you in ad revenue).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience in IT here in the UK, if most/all of your work can be done from home then it will likely be outsourced to India, in which case the speed of household Internet connections in the UK is of little importance.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience in IT here in the UK, if most/all of your work can be done from home then it will likely be outsourced to India, in which case the speed of household Internet connections in the UK is of little importance.
I appreciate that we're just trading in anecdotal evidence here, but while I myself am office based, a significant number of my UK colleagues are home workers, and yet more split their week between home working and coming to the office.
The IBM location in my town reduced its desk count, introduced mandatory hot-desking, and encouraged people to work from home some of the time.
the internet can replace a lot of human travel (Score:5, Insightful)
How about better real time teleconferencing as opposed to sending humans on expensive jet airplanes all over to meetings, or for workers who can work at home instead of physically commuting daily to the office?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And why not streaming HD content at a minimum of 20 Mbit/s? Why not 1 Gbit/s? We always know the connection will never be fast enough... but for god's sake... all we ever seem to do here is talk about it. If we just sit here and bitch about how slow it is, and the super wealthy assholes that own stake in the current infrastructure bitch about how fiber rollout will p
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam, Porn, Illegal downloads, Mafia....
Oh the legitimate ones, Remote tech support, daytrading, Online Security analyst.
If you have a online business, you're mental not having it at a central hosting location. It's not worth being able to walk over and touch the server for the price difference of the broadband and support that needs to go with it.
Honestly you can very easily support an online Store over 128K line. I have a friend that supports his 6 figure online income via a cellular connection.
If you ae dealing with high bandwidth content, then what is wrong with your executives being located in a place where you dont already have very high bandwidth availability? You need to physically beat to death your advisors that told you to build 64 miles away from the nearest optical node the telcos have.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have a friend that supports his 6 figure online income via a cellular connection.
I know a drug dealer too. ;-)
Re:Remember - It's an investment, not a $50bil los (Score:5, Funny)
The spying business ?
How else are they going to install the spy cams inside the TV's and stream all that data back to Big Brother (and no, I'm NOT talking about the one with the confessional etc.) ?
What better way to ensure that single parents are not cohabiting, or that everyone is segregating their rubbish ... and just along the way, perhaps one time in 10 million, we might actually catch someone making coke bottle bombs out of hydrogen peroxide ... so it must be worth the price.
And just think about all the employment we can create, paying people 12 pence about minimum wage so they can watch other people. No more pesky unemployment figures to worry about.
China might have talked about doing it years ago, but only the nanny state of UK could actually pull it off, in the name of "security".
Posted by a cynical ex-brit who left blighty 12 years ago, and never looked back.
Re: (Score:2)
The most obvious example would be high street video game and movie retailers. They'd probably still keep a few high street shops just for a bit of presence, but there wouldn't really be a need to have them anymore.
Storage Area Networks would also start making a lot more sense. Online backup services for both business and home use would be able to flourish.
Then there are things like making more use of thin clients, people hooking into their home machines and playing games on them etc. A lot of that will come
Re: (Score:2)
A business like mine that has 30 sites all interlinked and sharing data, with nightly transfers to headoffice for management reporting, intra-site backups using rsync and a VoIP network.
Don't specifically need 'FAT' but a full sync of all our data (only needed occasionally) takes 10 hours over 8Mbit DSL.
We've looked at fibre: 5K (GBP) install and then 7K year to operate - per site. having to consider it for our new HQ where the projected copper DSL speed is 1.5Mbit/sec
Re: (Score:2)
Upside:
- Fewer commuters, less traffic congestion, lower cost to workers, less CO2 put out. Dare I hope that lower fuel consu
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one thing businesses with a lot of employees working on computers.
For another, how about ... businesses with imagination?
Aside from the obvious examples of content businesses, there are businesses that could use content to sell more products and services. Here in th
overtaken by new technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
Apart from retaining the bottlenecks present at the sites people visit (what point is 1GB to the home, when the site you're downloading from is limited to 300KBit/S) isn't this simply the last throes of "old" technology?
Countries are already starting to use WiMax and no doubt when the problems around scaling it are fixed, this will be a much more cost effective (and far less disruptive) approach than cutting more trenches just to lay fibre to the home).
The biggest part fo the problem is providing a service in rural areas - where the low population density makes the cost of each circuit disproportionately high. Even if the decision is made (on purely financial grounds) to "fibre" urban areas, there's still need to be a different solution for areas where this isn't economically viable.
Re:overtaken by new technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
They're talking about digging up streets to lay fibre
They don't HAVE to though. Check out http://www.fibrecity.eu/fibrecity-england.htm [fibrecity.eu]
They're doing this near me at the moment, unfortunately I'm *just* outside the catchment area. Googles April Fools joke comes true...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Googles April Fools joke comes true...
Damn. You were serious...
Q: When will work start and will this mean digging up roads in the area?
A: Work is scheduled to start in September. The sewer will be used where possible...
Source [fibrecity.eu]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, not another one of these "Once we've solved the problems with interference and the shared bandwidth nature of wireless it's gonna be teh awesomes cos I likes has a wireless-g rooter n its awesomes".
Seriously, wireless access to the internet should be regarded as a low-bandwidth, low-reliability and mobile solution, not something that you try to sell to unsuspecting customers because you're too cheap to lay down fibre (or even copper in some places).
It's like ADSL here in .se, around 1997-1998 it was
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"the last throes of "old" technology?"
Whilst WiMax offers some great oppurtunities, wired solutions offer several inherent advantages over wireless solutions, including:
1) Data privacy & security can be better ensured using wired connections.
2) Wired bandwidth can always be scaled up massively by laying more/bigger cables. Available bandwidth for WiMax has limitations (unless we can utilize "subspace" of course!).
3) Wired connections have better ping times, quite important for many of the things requiri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Countries are already starting to use WiMax and no doubt when the problems around scaling it are fixed...
Unfortunately, that involves fixing those pesky laws of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
what point is 1GB to the home, when the site you're downloading from is limited to 300KBit/S
That site is unlikely to stay at 300kb/s if customers are faster (except in the US) and not all sites are the same. You're making the same type of mistake as the "640k is enough for anyone" blooper. Demand increases, and higher capacities enable new applications.
Why not roll it out in reverse order? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am presuming that the cost of rolling out fibre to the final 16% is based on the previous 84% having already been done, but why not start with the customers with the most need?
End users in towns and cities tend to have the higher rate ADSL services, some now achieving 24Mbps, which seems more than adequate for the time being. Get the rural customers that have the greatest need served first...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
End users in towns and cities tend to have the higher rate ADSL services, some now achieving 24Mbps
That can vary even on a street by street basis though. I live on the outskirts of London (Elm Park, technically Essex but still with a Tube station) and according to my router get a maximum of about 2.7Mbps of my "up to 8Mbps" ADSL connection (and download rates tend to cap out at about 1Mbps, as measured on PCs on the other end of the 54Mbps wifi connection). I appreciate that there are a lot of areas that wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lets measure quality not only quantity (Score:5, Interesting)
I have and ADSL connection that is supposedly at 1.5Mbps downstream, 320kbps upstream. It was working well until July, that means having basically zero lost packets on the first visible IP hop good minimum latency 54ms and reasonable max roundtrip (about 100ms) on the usual five minutes MRTG
After July Telecom Italia probablly channeled my ATM stream into a busy trunk since I now have about 2% lost packets, extreme jitter on roundtrip (not uncomon to have one second roundtrip on my first IP hop) and so basically my conncetion is BAD for voip and annoying for http
To measure all of this I use a modified MRTG [engidea.com]
So, it is good to have a high speed phisical link, but do not forget to check the rest of the infrastructure, othervise the first high speed link is just to make you pay more but give NO additional benefit at all
The cost is peanuts (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: here where we are in the UK we have cable. And HSDPA. And we get much more bandwidth to Marin County or Cupertino, CA than we do to North London, UK, or to the non-cable equipped BT supplied town eight miles away. It isn't just rural areas; the whole BT infrastructure badly needs fixing, and there is no way that the company that until recently said the Internet would be a passing fad is going to do the job properly.
Re:The cost is peanuts (Score:4, Insightful)
As Portugal is already ahead of the UK in any broadband ranking [itif.org] and is already deploying a nation-wide fiber optic network that will offer 100Mbit/s connectivity in any domestic connection [diarioeconomico.sapo.pt] then maybe, just maybe, you could not only get your facts straight but also avoid sounding like an idiot with all those racist remarks.
By the way, I'm Portuguese and I already pay 19 euros a month for an unlimited, 8Mbit/s connection.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the comparison to Portugal... Could you explain please?
Maybe it's that Portugal is building several high-speed railways, South Korea has high-speed internet.
Britain is investigating both (our trains aren't very fast compared to France/Germany/etc), but I don't see why we can't build both.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a happy Be customer at one time. My Be modem broke around 6 months into the contract, but I had an old Linksys ASDL modem that worked perfectly fine. I spoke to technical support, who after a few weeks also decided my modem was broken, and I might as well use the Linksys one that worked.
Then it came time to move house. Apparently they have a £40 disconnection charge(!) That was never mentioned in any documents I had when I signed up. Although I disputed it, they direct debited the mon
Fishy (Score:4, Interesting)
In the early-ish days of ADSL in Britain, it was quite common to check for availability, only to be told "Oh sorry, there's fibre running to your property - ADSL needs copper".
So unless they were really stupid and removed it, there's already an awful lot of fibre under people's streets.
I never understood the problem. Surely nobody cares whether they have ADSL or some other technology, as long as the bytes get to their TCP stack. Either market some fibre-based endpoint, or mass-produce fibre-ADSL media convertors and install them at the appropriate point.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it the wonder known as ISDN that stopped people getting ADSL? I'm not sure what cabling that's based on, but it could be fibre.
My parents had to make the choice with ISDN:
ISDN now, 128kbps symmetrical internet connection that allows phone and internet to be used together. Connection cost to switch. Different wiring so that adsl won't be available unless a cost is paid to reconnect the old line. Fairly expensive contract as well.
Keep ~48kbps dialup for a few years but not be able to use the phones whi
Probably actually aluminum cables (Score:5, Informative)
I can assure you that if there was cable in your area with FTTK, BT would be the very last people in the world to tell you. A Telewest salesman once told me that Telewest liked to employ people who had actually been sacked by BT rather than being made redundant, because redundant employees still believed one day they might get their jobs back, and so didn't want to sell against BT. The attitude Telewest liked was the guy who, in WW2 fighter style, put a little telephone sticker on his car every time he managed to move a business away from BT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In some places there was main exchange -> fiber -> roadside box exchange -> copper -> consumer.
In the early days of ADSL it wasn't physically possible to fit ADSL equipment into the roadside box exchange. I think this might now have changed BICBW.
Tim.
Ha. Well, there's no harm in calculating. (Score:2)
It'd be nice if they'd actually *do* something like this though, but I can't see it happening. This is kind of like standing in an Apple shop going "Mmmmm pretty. Shame I can't afford it."
Spend the Olympics money on it; we'll only make a complete and total Millennium Dome style "designed by clowns" cockup of that anyway.
The thing with opening up massive broadband though is that something will also have to be done about bandwidth costs for the sites that are being downloaded from.
They're missing the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fiber can then be laid opportunistically when infrastructure is upgraded, then connected together wherever the demand arises. To spend enormous amounts of tax money debating hypothetical universal options is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
For now and the next few years, most people would be more than thrilled to get the 8 to 24Mb/sec that they have paid for. This only needs more backbone, not the ultra-expensive "last mile infrastructure".
In a lot of people's cases, that will mean replacing the ageing, poor-quality phonelines between them and the exchange. If you're going to replace them anyway, might as well do it with something that you're not going to need to replace again in a couple of years time.
Still cheaper than... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still cheaper than the money they will end up wasting on ID cards.
The UK is larger than England... (Score:5, Informative)
I would imagine that the rural areas of Scotland and maybe Wales would pose tougher choices, as they are also in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
You might thing so but you would be wrong. I would appear that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly already see this as an issue and are making have made the investment to fix the problem to at least some extent.
Maths (Score:4, Interesting)
From TOA - £28 billion fibre infrastructure bill.
Currently there are 16 million households with Internet access in Britain [statistics.gov.uk].
If all of them adopted fibre, the cost per household would therefore be £1750, which would need to be recouped in ISP charges etc. over the course of this generation of technology's lifetime. Maybe £350 a year over 5 years = £30 a month.
That's more than I currently pay for unmetered ADSL, and doesn't factor in any profits, nor all the other stuff ISPs do.
OTOH commerce and government get a lot of value out of the Internet, so it makes sense to me that the effort should be funded by the public purse and taxes on business.
Universal Fibre? No (Score:4, Insightful)
If all those households adopted fibre, then none of them would pay for ADSL. So you would have to subtract all current ADSL revenues from the pool of money available to fund this infrastructure. That's a big subtraction.
Chances are excellent that most households which already have ADSL would not switch to fibre unless the difference in price is zero (or very nearly zero). Slashdot audience aside, most households are perfectly content with ADSL "last mile" speeds, at least with the present range of Internet-delivered services.
Put these two facts together and one quickly concludes that, if the cost of the infrastructure is accurate, in order to execute the project the vast majority of funding would come from sources other than household rate payers. I really don't see the point given that there are likely much more attractive alternative business cases, including some combination of urban fibre, wireless, and improved copper-based technologies. Which coincidentally is exactly the approach Japan is taking. New high-rise apartment buildings in urban areas tend to get fibre, most of the rest of the country gets progressively faster ADSL, and various wireless data services keep getting more prevalent. Much of Tokyo has cheap 802.11b/g service available, for example, and the mobile telephone carriers keep boosting their data speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
If all of them adopted fibre, the cost per household would therefore be £1750, which would need to be recouped in ISP charges etc. over the course of this generation of technology's lifetime. Maybe £350 a year over 5 years = £30 a month.
So - I currently pay £19/month for "up to 8Mbps" (really at best 2.5Mbps and I don't get that sustained either) ADSL, or for an extra £30 plus say £10 profit a month (total £60/month) I could have 1Gbps fibre broadband?
I'm sold.
Cry me a river.. (Score:2)
If you really want to be scared do research on what it would take to upgrade the interwebs in a country like Russia, Canada, China, or the US. Note the extra zeros at the end.
Regardless, what will end up happening is it will flood the populated areas and sparsely inhabited areas will have to wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No-one uses billion = 10^12 any more, not even the UK government, otherwise we'd still be talking about millards instead of 10^9. Take your pedantry elsewhere
Oh sure, next you're going to tell me that no one uses inches and pounds except us uppity colonies.
BT is ineffectual. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a simple explanation of all this. BT is one of the most inept companies in the UK. I used to work for a DSL provider in the UK and had to deal with BT Wholesale all the time, who, in turn had to deal with BT OpenReach. It's a complete and utter mess thanks to the UK Gov't privatising and stifling actual competition.
Add to that, I've seen cases where a new customer signs up for ADSL. If that customer isn't a BT Broadband customer, BT OpenReach will "mysteriously" switch their copper to the cross-wired/noisy pair and miraculously, the BT Broadband customer will have the quietest lines!
It's a complete mess.
I see the future now...... (Score:5, Funny)
Download 10000 MP3's or 500 movies in 5 minutes*
All for only £500 a month (Fair usage limits apply**)
*From legal sources only, though everyone knows the only place you can get that amount of files is from illegal sources, even though we hate file sharers making us a bunch of 2 faced cunts.
**If you download more than 1Meg during some unspecified time limit that differs throughout the country we will limit your speed to 512k. Full speed will be reinstated after another unspecified time period. Unrestricted access is only available between the times of 01:00 - 01:10 each day.
Re: (Score:2)
The future's already here (according to Samuel L Jackson). Virgin ADSL already pull this sort of crap, glad I left them.
Re: (Score:2)
This raises a serious question, doesn't it? Is it worth destroying the existing recording industry, just to have all the new industries this would create? ...
Hold on. What could I have been thinking?
3G LTE instead? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or we could just let the Mobile Telecoms companies roll out 3G LTE http://snipurl.com/3ohwz [snipurl.com]
(should be here about as quickly as laying fibre to everyone's house...)
With T-Mo and 3UK consolidating their 3G RANs coverage is going to be expanded substantially.
Let's face it: the 3G licence holders (3UK, T-Mo, Orange, Voda and 02) paid a hell of a lot more
in the spectrum auction to HM Govt. than this £28.8bn!
Disclaimer: I work for a Managed Service company directly working on the 3/T-Mo consolidation.
Money Grabbing Profiteering Gluttens (Score:3, Informative)
This kind of topic REALLY rubs me the wrong way.
BT work great as a company, but have had no intention (until lately) to upgrade their networks or lay down a decent infrastructure for future improvements.
Work great as a company, much like the Petroleum companies in the UK, they can make a staggering profit, while screwing the consumers.
TeleWest/NTL/Virgin Media have had a solid network from the start, while BT prolly ridiculed them at spending such a vast amount on laying fibre.
Now when the profits are being squeezed & the copper core disadvantages are being highlighted, and every kbps is being used, BT/UK Govt complain of the Upgrade costs that have to be passed onto the consumer.
Needless to say I'm an ADSL, BT "boned" user, (although my ISP IS NOT BT), I only wish they had cable in my area.. :(
Re: (Score:2)
None of the new houses, in the fastest growing town in the UK, have cable - w
Privatisation fked it up (Score:2)
Before the state owned telecoms company was sold off they had plans to run fibre to the door of every home in the UK.
Then the cable TV companies ran fibre to the street cabinet.
Then BT ran fibre to the exchanges.
A fucking great duplication of effort and wasted opportunity.
Rural isn't always slower though (Score:2)
I live in the Scottish Highlands, 3.5 Miles from the local exchange measured point to point. We don't have fibre of course, but we do seem to have extremely good copper - possibly because the branch of the line I'm on ends another 8 miles further down the glen. I routinely get 4.5Mb on my line (Demon as ISP), have seen 6.5Mb, and Demon tell me they are seeing a little over 7.2Mb raw connection speed at the Exchange. Furthermore because the exchange only has 130 people on it contention is virtually unknow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be worth you while rechecking that. My exchange was one of the last to be upgraded to ADSL as it was under the magic 250 subscriber number at which BT said it would never be commercially viable and so never going to upgrade them. However ALL the exchanges in Scotland were upgraded around four years ago courtesy of an ~ £50 million rural access grant from the EC. We were limited to 1Mb originally but that was upgraded a couple of years back. So the problem should not (now) be your exchan
802.11 N? (Score:2)
802.11 N supports up to about 300mbps, and has a range of .5 km, wouldn't it be more cost effective to dump a few of these around the place.
Really? (Score:2)
It's funny how this is supposed to costs billions in the UK however in France they were able to roll out Fibre with 1000mbs products showing up almost everywhere for a sub 1bn investment (can't locate the source of this at the moment).
Funny how every other country with a successful Internet deploment strategy (France, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Korea, etc.) are all able to get this deployed without anybody getting out of business. The old dinosaur BT however needs oodles of cash. Yeah right.
Guess the old "Rip-
Source and report (Score:2, Informative)
fibre to the street cabinet (Score:2, Insightful)
Digging up streets is extremely expensive and labour-intensive, which is why when all the little local cable companies had built their networks, they had very little money to invest in the actual serice, and they ended up being taken over by what eventually merged into Virgin Media. Virgin Media seem to h
Avoid fiber! Use the copper smarter. (Score:2)
The point is the UK has stacks of long copper circuits running everywhere they need to go. This copper can be much better utilised with modern electronics than the primative dedicated POTS circuits. Also keeps the Hysterical Preservation Boards less unhappy than trenching.
The key is to conv
Do we have to wire the boondocks? (Score:2)
Do the boondocks **HAVE** to be wholly wired to the hilt? I mean, those people have deliberately chosen an energically-wasteful and ecologically dubious lifestyle. And with increasing pressure put on the environment precisely by the transportation needed for those people, why should they not be penalized for their willful choice, instead of having those made wiser choice having to foot their connection bill?
We simply don't have "boondocks" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Right" to fast broadband? (Score:2)
I would like to know exactly when it became a right for people that live in the middle of nowhere to have fast broadband. Purely letting the market decide is not the correct solution because we would end up with a situation in which probably only 30% of the country would ever get fibre. Going out of our way to make sure every isolated house gets fibre is not the correct solution either.
Personally I think we should aim for about 80% of houses with fibre to the home (yes, I would be in the 80%). If that means
What 'fast broadband' really means (Score:2)
If I were to actually use 7.6 megabits/second constantly I would get an unpleasant email from my ISP. The maximum bandwidth your connection can handle has little bearing on how much data the UKs creaking network of copper cables and fibre optics can actually shift.
Only a tiny fraction of people use the Internet to its full potential. We are not a small % of antisocial bastards; whenever I have shown someone what is out there they have taken it. People only self-regulate their usage through ignorance. BBC ip
Re: (Score:2)
Madness? THIS. IS. NEW. LABOUR!!!!!
Having bought into the free market orthodoxy of Thatcher, New Labour instinctively hand over everything to private contractors who milk the taxpayer and do a shabby job. At the risk of being branded a dirty commie, renationalising BT might be a requirement for getting this job done properly and for reasonable price.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
UK supply is actually 230V +/- 10% in line with the rest of the EU.
(OK, actually it's 230V +10% -6% but we're getting a bit technical now...)