BT's great broadband scam

[Artic]

"...The former public utility is gambling with your money, but doesn't think you should know where it's going.."

Tax havens innit

[John Rumm]

Remind me not to read the gruaniad again... Just how thick are those people?

The thrust of the argument seems to be:

Public company attempts to push into a new market (Sports TV), and provide an enhanced return for its shareholders. Only its a bit of a gamble... No shit sherlock, welcome to the real world.

Next it wants a billion of public money to provide BB services "for the public good" to rural areas that may or may not provide a return on investment. Did they spot the word "charity" in the title of BT plc?

"Given that everyone agrees that getting Britain online is a public good, what do those giants at the Department for Culture do? Why, award juicy subsidies to private companies to bribe them to do the work"

Yes, because forming a government quango to replicate the old post office telephones, then spending many £Bns required to duplicate BT's technical infrastructure, just so they can to do it all themselves (badly), would be so much more efficient?

"Competition has driven the success of the current generation of broadband services ? the result has been greater choice, innovation, lower prices and high levels of broadband adoption." Except that's plainly not the whole truth"

Erm, have a look at the areas of the US that are still (and will likely forever will be) stuck with dialup. If there is no economic reason for any company to enter a particular area of business, even in the presence of competition, none of them will. If government wants them to for public service reasons, then it seems likely they will need to provide public money for it to happen.

[Dave Liquorice]

The whole rural broadband thing stinks to high heaven.

"But 21st-century market-fundamentalist Britain must always run a race, if only to give a gold medal and a massive handout to the one competitor that actually ran."

There where a few others under starters orders, only one (Fujitsu) actually started but they pulled out earlier in the year.

Also note that BDUK (Broadband Delivery UK) is only going to provide NGA (Next Generation Access, above 24Mbps, aka "superfast broadband") to at 90% of premises. The remaining 10% will only get "universal access" a minimum of 2Mbps.

There is the "Rural Community Broadband Fund" to support communities in the 10% universal service only areas to develop NGA services.

*BUT* BT are playing their cards so close to their chest that no one knows that if they do set up a community company/Co-Op/WHY that BT won't come along and blow them out of the water next week, month, year...

Having said that BT only appear to be doing FTTC which is fine in towns but only really provides NGA to within 1km of the cabinet. Rural areas don't have many cabinets. Most connections are several mile long "home runs" back to the exchange. BT Infinity is a cabinet only service, no cabinet, no Infinity as it's not provisioned at exchnages.

Really does show the limited range of FTTC on a rural scale.

BT Sport and their studios in the ex Olympic IBC (International Broadcast Centre) also has a bit odour around it. Who provided the

*massive* amount of connectiveity for the IBC? Yep, BT. have they paid proper commercial rates for their now BT Sport use? I think there is a 3rd party "property developer" in the mix somewhere. Have they paid the right amount of money, for the building/facilties, have they charged BT Sport correctly?

[Dave Liquorice]

There is more behind BT Sport than meets the eye. See other post re the IBC. Sky and Virgin Media provide broadband, phone and TV over their own networks. These services are threatening BT's phone and broadband business. BT Sport(*) is to compete against Sky and Virgin Media in the "triple play" (TV/phone/broadband) market.

But what we have is at least 44 quangos paying BT billions to use their network. I suspect that dragging the LA's in and the 50% match funding is part of the "work around" for the EU "government subsidy" rules.

I agree installing yet another network wouldn't be good use of money but I very much doubt that would physically happen anyway. The single quango would just buy already installed dark fibre from... BT!

As far as BDUK is concerned there has only been token competition. Only ever two starters and one pulled up because the rules, regulations, conditions, etc where far too complicated (and biased?).

(*) Does BT Vision still exist or has it been rebranded to BT Sport?

[John Rumm]

Indeed, and the competition has often worked out that the pickings in many situations are not worth competing for.

And that does not help certainly. Government out lawyered by industry and suppliers shock!

I think it still exists at the mo...

[Huge]

On 2013-08-13, Artic but doesn't

Because it isn't your money.

Good.

Serves you right for getting your information from that piece of (soon to be bankrupt) arsewipe.

[Huge]

Having been repeatedly shafted by the regulators, can you really blame them?

[Theo Markettos]

Artic think you should know where it's going.."

It should be fairly easy to see where the money goes. BT Openreach does the wiring, BT Retail does the TV (plus BT Business and other units). If BTO is subsidising BTR, then it should show in the accounts. Even if the accounts are fudged, if there's a proper accounting wall between the two the accounts should show how much money flows from BTR to BTO. Also the income BTO receives from other ISPs, and from the government. It's then a question of where the 'profit' from Openreach goes.

The way BT Retail get money is from people with BT as their ISP/telco, not simply their wholesale line provider. If you don't want to support BT Retail's TV ambitions, go somewhere else, simple as that.

Theo

[Dave Liquorice]

In the case of the 530 million NGA and 20 million RCBF that BDUK are doshing out, together with the match funding from local councils it

*is* "your money". It's has come from central government/local councils.

Oh yes it is. B-)

[SteveW]

Yes, but what we actually need is choice! All the providers do the same thing, they bundle together channels that people will be likely to want, with others that are not very popular. They then carefully ensure that the things that most people want are split between the packages, to push everyone into paying more for extra packages.

For instance, our household wants the basic channels (which you can get "free" anyway), two or three kids channels, four or five documentary channels and a few movie channels. To get them we have to subscribe to everything going, except the sport channels - and we get them thrown in "free" anyway!

SteveW

[Dave Liquorice]

The way they are messing me about at the moment, they deserve to have the regulator throw the book at them. If a phone call later on this morning isn't productive I will be complaining to the regulator (copies to relevant directors of BT).

Been trying to move a number since the middle of May...

[tony sayer]

Why don't you just change phone company like I suggested Dave;?...

[Dave Liquorice]

Principally because I wasn't aware that you could without involving LLU (which our exchange doesn't have from any provider) or VOIP. There is also the issue of Totalcare.

I have ported two numbers to VOIP, which is pretty damn good and in the last two fault periods have continued to work over (the much speed reduced) ADSL when the POTS side had no DC loop so was completely dead.

I now have a reference number but the promised confirmation email hasn't appeared.

[tony sayer]

Seems the BT joke carries on;!...

>