------
• £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
fibre by 2012
• Plans dependent on regulatory regime and certainty
• Dividend guidance reaffirmed, share buyback suspended from July 31
2008

BT today announced plans to roll out fibre-based, super-fast broadband
to as many as 10 million homes by 2012. The £1.5 billion programme
will deliver a range of services with top speeds of up to 100 Mb/s
with the potential for speeds of more than 1,000 Mb/s in the future.

The investment forms part of BT’s wider strategy of delivering next
generation broadband services nationwide. The UK already has world
leading broadband availability and this investment programme offers
the prospect of joining the world super league for broadband speeds as
well.

BT chief executive Ian Livingston said: “Broadband has boosted the UK
economy and is now an essential part of our customers’ lives. We now
want to make a step-change in broadband provision which will offer
faster speeds than ever before. This marks the beginning of a new
chapter in Britain’s broadband story.

“This is a bold step by BT and we need others to be just as bold. We
are keen to partner with people who share our vision for the next
phase of the broadband revolution. We want to work with local and
regional bodies to decide where and when we should focus the
deployment. Our aim is that urban and rural areas alike will benefit
from our investment”.

A supportive and enduring regulatory environment is essential if this
investment is to take place. Given this, BT will be discussing with
Ofcom the conditions that would be necessary to enable this programme
to progress. These include removing current barriers to investment and
making sure that anyone who chooses to invest in fibre can earn a fair
rate of return for their shareholders.

Fibre-based super-fast broadband will give customers enough speed to
run multiple bandwidth-hungry applications. So, for example, some
members of a family could be watching different high definition movies
while others were gaming or working on complex graphics or video
projects. The new services will also offer substantially improved
“upstream” speeds allowing customers to post videos, use hi-def video
conferencing and enjoy interactive hi-def gaming to the full.

BT already provides fibre to the premises of more than 120,000
businesses, and has deployed more than 10 million kilometres of fibre
in the network.

BT is committed to wholesaling its new services – unlike many other
companies and countries – thereby ensuring Britain remains the most
competitive broadband market in the world. BT will also be pressing
for any other next generation access network in the UK to be open to
other companies.

Financial details

BT plans to invest around £1.5 billion in total on the programme, of
which around £1 billion is incremental to BT’s existing expenditure
plans for fibre deployment.

BT expects its initial investment in the programme will result in
around £100 million of incremental capital expenditure in each of the
2008/09 and 2009/10 financial years, taking the total expected capital
expenditure in those years to around £3.2 billion and £3.1 billion,
respectively. The remaining incremental spend of £800 million will be
spread over the following three financial years.

Given the strategic priority of this planned investment, the Board has
decided it would be appropriate to suspend the current share buyback
programme with effect from July 31, 2008.  By that date BT will have
returned in excess of £1.8 billion of the planned £2.5 billion buyback
programme.

The Board of BT remains committed to the dividend and expects to grow
dividends per share in the 2008/09 financial year.

Questions and Answers

What will be delivered? Fibre-to-the-premise (FTTP) or fibre-to-the-
cabinet (FTTC)?
We will deliver both though the exact split will be driven by the
interest shown by government and regional and local authorities. FTTP
deployment will be focused primarily on new build sites such as
Ebbsfleet and the Olympic Village whilst FTTC will be more prevalent
elsewhere.

What speeds will be delivered and where?
FTTP will deliver headline speeds of up to 100Mb whilst FTTC will
initially deliver speeds of up to 40Mb though we are investigating
technologies that can increase those speeds to more than 60Mb. In
addition to the new fibre-based services, copper-based ADSL2 will
deliver nationwide speeds of up to 24Mb. Recent tests show the
majority of ADSL2 customers should enjoy speeds of around 10Mb or
above with many getting substantially higher speeds. The technology is
also improving all the time.

Which areas will benefit first from this investment?
BT will work with Government and regional and local authorities on the
roll out plans. They can help ensure there is demand for fibre and so
we look forward to working with them to ensure our roll-out is demand-
driven. Our aim is that both urban and rural areas will be able to
benefit.
Will fibre only be available in large cities as has happened in other
countries?
No. Our aim is that fibre will be widely available and not just in the
major cities – unlike in some countries. Its precise deployment will
depend on the engagement of government and regional and local
authorities but there is no reason why it should not be available in a
variety of environments.

Will the UK be in a stronger position after this deployment?
Yes. This plan will deliver some of the fastest speeds in the world to
a far larger percentage of the population than in some other countries
where fibre services are largely confined to major cities.

What will happen to those parts of the UK who won’t have access to
fibre?
Those areas will have access to copper-based ADSL2, a service
offering speeds of up to 24Mb. This will be sufficient for services
such as Hi-Definition TV. BT will roll out fibre beyond this plan if
there is sufficient demand and it can make an adequate return on its
investment.

If ADSL2 offers sufficient speed to enjoy new services, why invest in
fibre?
Copper-based ADSL2 will offer sufficient speed for services including
HDTV but fibre will allow people to enjoy several such services
simultaneously. It is important everyone is bold in ensuring there is
sufficient capacity for future services and our plans will ensure
this.

Is this investment dependent on Ofcom creating a new regulatory
framework?
Yes. The right regulatory environment is vital for anyone seeking to
invest. The funds required are extremely large and companies need
confidence that risk-taking can be appropriately rewarded.

Will BT exclude other companies in the way companies have in other
countries?
No. BT is totally committed to a wholesale market and so will make its
services available on an equivalent basis to all communications
providers.

Does BT believe that other next generation networks should also be
open?
Yes. BT’s firm belief is that all next generation networks in the UK
should be open as this approach will boost competition and consumers
and businesses will benefit.

What are BT’s plans post this investment?
BT will review its plans on a constant basis. If there is adequate
demand and interest for fibre-based broadband and BT can make an
adequate return, the plans would be extended.

Will fibre-based services be more expensive?
It is likely they will be at the wholesale level but the prices that
consumers and businesses will pay will be determined by the market and
not just BT.

Are “next generation broadband” and “super-fast broadband” the same
thing?
No. “Next generation broadband” refers to the family of new services
that BT will offer. These include fibre-based “super-fast” services –
such as FTTP and FTTC – as well as advanced copper-based fast services
such as ADSL2.

Is this a good time to invest given the current “credit crunch”?
It is important that we invest for the long-term. This is a bold step
that will ensure businesses and consumers have all the speed they
require in the foreseeable future.

Are you taking action to reduce the congestion caused by services such
as the BBC’s iPlayer?
Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity
on the “backhaul” pipes that link exchanges to the core network. This
move should ensure Internet congestion is minimised. BT will also
invest significant funds in improving core network capacity. Both
measures should ensure customers on BT’s network will enjoy a higher
quality of service than those on cable networks where contention and
internet congestion has been more of an issue.
------

from http://www.btplc.com/news/articles/showarticle.cfm?articleid=efd7b1fa-52ed-45bb-b530-734fac577e94

Regards
Sunil

Sunil Sood wrote:
> ------
> • £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
<snip>

And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use! 
:rolleyes:

"^^artnada^^"  wrote in message 
news:LA%ek.27129$E41.20731@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Sunil Sood wrote:
>> ------
>> . £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
> <snip>
>
> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use! 
> :rolleyes:

And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone* 
who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that 
giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is 
far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to 
a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is.

Mortimer wrote:
> "^^artnada^^"  wrote in message 
> news:LA%ek.27129$E41.20731@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Sunil Sood wrote:
>>> ------
>>> . £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
>> <snip>
>>
>> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use! 
>> :rolleyes:
> 
> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone* 
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that 
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is 
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to 
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is. 
> 
> 
Y'know, they might be smart, and fibre up those places that are least 
well served today..

And Tony Bliar might be an honest man.;-)

In article <2u2dnR3zEtefFOHVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet>,
 "Mortimer"  writes:
> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone* 
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that 
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is 
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to 
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is. 

Pretty much by definition, once you reach some specific proportion of
coverage, well into the late-90s percent somewhere, there's no-one worth
bothering about left that can't get it.  Customers you don't need aren't
worth the effort to sell anything to.
-- 
SAm.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1216125281.15018.4@proxy01.news.clara.net
> Mortimer wrote:
>> "^^artnada^^"  wrote in message
>> news:LA%ek.27129$E41.20731@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Sunil Sood wrote:
>>>> ------
>>>> . £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use!
>>>> rolleyes:
>>
>> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that
>> *everyone* who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get 
>> it? I'd
>> say that giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though
>> preferably faster!) is far more important than upgrading those 
>> people
>> who already have broadband to a faster speed, enticing though that
>> prospect definitely is.
> Y'know, they might be smart, and fibre up those places that are 
> least
> well served today..
>
> And Tony Bliar might be an honest man.;-)


Is this bit true:

"Are you taking action to reduce the congestion caused by services 
such as the BBC’s iPlayer?

Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity 
on the “backhaul” pipes that link exchanges to the core network."

I've not seen that reported anywhere.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

^^artnada^^ wrote:
> Sunil Sood wrote:
> 
>>------
>>• £1.5 billion programme to give up to 10 million homes access to
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And they'll still put caps on the amount of bandwidth you can use! 
> :rolleyes:
> 
> 
> 
The Register postings contain a comment from someone that he will at 
least be able to download his capped amount in 15seconds.!

Mike

> The Register postings contain a comment from someone that he will at
> least be able to download his capped amount in 15seconds.!

And if it is considered infringing intellectual property rights, get
a prompt email, desist or we will cut you off.
I believe some ISP's are amending T&C's so that even if they
cut you off for infringing their T&C's you are still liable to pay
for the remainder of the contract term. Even if you have
a dead service, it is deemed that you broke the contract
and are therefore liable.

Mortimer  wrote 
> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that
*everyone* 
> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say
that 
> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably
faster!) is 
> far more important than upgrading those people who already have
broadband to 
> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is. 

Everyone ?

is that 98%, 99% or 99.9% or what ?

And who is going to pay -- are you prepared to pay a surcharge so the
last 2,250 in valleys in Scotland and Wales that can't 'see'
synchronous satellites can have broadband ?

-- 
Mike D

The message 
from sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) contains these words:

> In article <2u2dnR3zEtefFOHVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet>,
>  "Mortimer"  writes:
> > And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that
> > *everyone* 
> > who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that 
> > giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably
> > faster!) is 
> > far more important than upgrading those people who already have
> > broadband to 
> > a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is. 

> Pretty much by definition, once you reach some specific proportion  of
> coverage, well into the late-90s percent somewhere, there's no-one worth
> bothering about left that can't get it.  Customers you don't need aren't
> worth the effort to sell anything to.


Of course the various cable companies could also provide a service to
that last few percent themselves?

You also have situations like Barra where some on the island wanted a
grant to be given to BT to upgrade their exchanges for ADSL but the
council wants to throw money at a wireless system which will probably
cost more.

> Everyone ?
>
> is that 98%, 99% or 99.9% or what ?
>
> And who is going to pay -- are you prepared to pay a surcharge so the
> last 2,250 in valleys in Scotland and Wales that can't 'see'
> synchronous satellites can have broadband ?

That will probably never happen, there are places today which don't
have a decent phone service never mind broadband. As for nationwide
rollout, the cost seem to be very low compared to their previous
predication. £1.5 Billion for 40% of UK households and that's £16.5
Billion for the rest of the UK. The target date would suggest they
maybe have seen that they are having to dig up roads and they it may
be easier to put in fibre after all the labours costs are very high
for BT, compared to materials.
Its a step in the right direction, but in someway's it like BT are
shifting the blame elsewhere. They are basically saying that they will
invest is Ofcom does what they say and if not then Ofcom will be
blamed for stopping/hindering 'next generation' broadband.
By a balance they probably are targeting rural areas which already
have some fibre and making use of that. Whatever happens it will be
interesting.

You know, I was sat in a meeting yesterday and one of the T3 support 
guru's was talking about 'networking in the old days' describing 'time 
division multiplexing' and some of the old fashioned kit they used. To 
me, he was describing pretty much what they have in BT exchanges to this 
day.

On one side of the coin the investment will bring benefits to the customer
On the other BT are a business who want a good return for the investment
And the crusher - no matter how good you make it, you'll always have an 
army of BT engineers to completely f8*k it up and make it unreliable.
-- 
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe

Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article <2u2dnR3zEtefFOHVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet>,
>  "Mortimer"  writes:
>> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that *everyone* 
>> who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd say that 
>> giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though preferably faster!) is 
>> far more important than upgrading those people who already have broadband to 
>> a faster speed, enticing though that prospect definitely is. 
> 
> Pretty much by definition, once you reach some specific proportion of
> coverage, well into the late-90s percent somewhere, there's no-one worth
> bothering about left that can't get it.  Customers you don't need aren't
> worth the effort to sell anything to.

Mm. Its not that that is the issue, as much as - say - a remote 
geographical area with ten customers gasping for broadband, not being 
worth cabling up..


In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the British 
isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.

Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north sea.

naza wrote:
>> Everyone ?
>>
>> is that 98%, 99% or 99.9% or what ?
>>
>> And who is going to pay -- are you prepared to pay a surcharge so the
>> last 2,250 in valleys in Scotland and Wales that can't 'see'
>> synchronous satellites can have broadband ?
> 
> That will probably never happen, there are places today which don't
> have a decent phone service never mind broadband. As for nationwide
> rollout, the cost seem to be very low compared to their previous
> predication. £1.5 Billion for 40% of UK households and that's £16.5
> Billion for the rest of the UK. The target date would suggest they
> maybe have seen that they are having to dig up roads and they it may
> be easier to put in fibre after all the labours costs are very high
> for BT, compared to materials.
> Its a step in the right direction, but in someway's it like BT are
> shifting the blame elsewhere. They are basically saying that they will
> invest is Ofcom does what they say and if not then Ofcom will be
> blamed for stopping/hindering 'next generation' broadband.
> By a balance they probably are targeting rural areas which already
> have some fibre and making use of that. Whatever happens it will be
> interesting.


I am beginning to sympathise with BT.

I remember a conference of financial types talking about alternative 
energy: A german banker buttonholed me over lunch "tTell me, ja, these 
schemes they are talking about, these will need goverenment subsidies to 
wrk, ja?"

"As I understand it, yes"


"Then I am gone: when the government regulates the market, we stay in 
business, but we never make a profit! Nein? haha!"

Privatisation of a de facto monopoly never works. Because its a monopoly 
it has to be regulated. Because its regulated the taxpayers will always 
scream if it makes a big profit, but no one will invest in it if it doesn't.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1216191960.23817.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Sam Nelson wrote:
>> In article <2u2dnR3zEtefFOHVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet>,
>>  "Mortimer"  writes:
>>> And I wonder whether they'll invest any money in making sure that 
>>> *everyone* who wants broadband, anywhere in the country, can get it? I'd 
>>> say that giving everyone at least 512 Kb/sec broadband (though 
>>> preferably faster!) is far more important than upgrading those people 
>>> who already have broadband to a faster speed, enticing though that 
>>> prospect definitely is.
>>
>> Pretty much by definition, once you reach some specific proportion of
>> coverage, well into the late-90s percent somewhere, there's no-one worth
>> bothering about left that can't get it.  Customers you don't need aren't
>> worth the effort to sell anything to.
>
> Mm. Its not that that is the issue, as much as - say - a remote 
> geographical area with ten customers gasping for broadband, not being 
> worth cabling up..
>
>
> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the British 
> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.

There still is - BT's "universal service" obligation.
However, this only applies to telephone service, not internet service.
BT were very careful not to get themselves dragged into that when the 
internet was invented!

George

In uk.telecom DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> Yes. BT has made it much cheaper for companies to buy extra capacity 
> on the ?backhaul? pipes that link exchanges to the core network."

> I've not seen that reported anywhere.

Looking at prices offered by one ISP - an EntaNet reseller - the peak
and offpeak usage limits have been increased for essentially the same
consumer subscription. (The offpeak hours have been reduced too, though,
so maybe it's swings and roundabouts.)

Chris

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote 

> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
British 
> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
> 
> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
sea.

Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
it.

"service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.

-- 
Mike D

"Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message 
news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>
>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
> British
>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>>
>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
> sea.
>
> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
> it.
>
> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.

Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to 
provide narrowband modem usage - wow!

There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level of 
broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, given that 
they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places that have cable or 
a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged to upgrade their lines 
(both in terms of quality and sufficient number of pairs) and to remove any 
non-compatible cabling.

The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new technology 
emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and dial-up.

Mortimer wrote:
> "Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message 
> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>
>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
>> British
>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>>>
>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
>> sea.
>>
>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
>> it.
>>
>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
> 
> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to 
> provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
> 
> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level of 
> broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, given that 
> they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places that have cable or 
> a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged to upgrade their lines 
> (both in terms of quality and sufficient number of pairs) and to remove any 
> non-compatible cabling.
> 
> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new technology 
> emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and dial-up. 
> 
> 

But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for 
providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who want 
to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced to 
fully follow the existing situation where competition only serves high 
profit, low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure at 
non-commercial rates?

Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based on 
the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)

-- 
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the 
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able 
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

PeeGee wrote:
> Mortimer wrote:
>> "Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message 
>> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>>
>>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
>>> British
>>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
>>> sea.
>>>
>>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
>>
>> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to 
>> provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
>>
>> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level 
>> of broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, 
>> given that they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places 
>> that have cable or a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged 
>> to upgrade their lines (both in terms of quality and sufficient number 
>> of pairs) and to remove any non-compatible cabling.
>>
>> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new 
>> technology emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and 
>> dial-up.
>>
> 
> But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for 
> providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who want 
> to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced to 
> fully follow the existing situation where competition only serves high 
> profit, low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure at 
> non-commercial rates?
> 
> Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based on 
> the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
> 
That is the whole frickin problem with BT. You cant privatise a de facto 
monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one of what 
the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise the 
uneconomic bits.

Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a 
not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not 
hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls 
should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.

Along with the national grid by and large.

That would lead to plenty of space for IPs and telcos to use that 
infrastructure in a competitive way, like road hauliers use the road 
network.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1216288783.15256.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> PeeGee wrote:
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> "Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message 
>>> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
>>>> British
>>>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
>>>> sea.
>>>>
>>>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
>>>
>>> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to 
>>> provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
>>>
>>> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level of 
>>> broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, given 
>>> that they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places that have 
>>> cable or a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged to upgrade 
>>> their lines (both in terms of quality and sufficient number of pairs) 
>>> and to remove any non-compatible cabling.
>>>
>>> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new 
>>> technology emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and 
>>> dial-up.
>>>
>>
>> But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for 
>> providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who want 
>> to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced to fully 
>> follow the existing situation where competition only serves high profit, 
>> low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure at non-commercial 
>> rates?
>>
>> Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based on 
>> the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
>>
> That is the whole frickin problem with BT. You cant privatise a de facto 
> monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one of what 
> the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise the 
> uneconomic bits.
>
> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a not 
> for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not hand 
> over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls should be 
> the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>
> Along with the national grid by and large.

Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see: 
http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/

George

George Weston wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
> news:1216288783.15256.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>> PeeGee wrote:
>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>> "Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
>>>>> British
>>>>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of north
>>>>> sea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what replaced
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
>>>> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged to 
>>>> provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
>>>>
>>>> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some level of 
>>>> broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for it, given 
>>>> that they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in places that have 
>>>> cable or a wireless internet scheme. They should be obliged to upgrade 
>>>> their lines (both in terms of quality and sufficient number of pairs) 
>>>> and to remove any non-compatible cabling.
>>>>
>>>> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new 
>>>> technology emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax and 
>>>> dial-up.
>>>>
>>> But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for 
>>> providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who want 
>>> to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced to fully 
>>> follow the existing situation where competition only serves high profit, 
>>> low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure at non-commercial 
>>> rates?
>>>
>>> Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based on 
>>> the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
>>>
>> That is the whole frickin problem with BT. You cant privatise a de facto 
>> monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one of what 
>> the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise the 
>> uneconomic bits.
>>
>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a not 
>> for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not hand 
>> over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls should be 
>> the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>
>> Along with the national grid by and large.
> 
> Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see: 
> http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
> 

Precisely. Neither should be.

> George 
> 
>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:04:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> George Weston wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1216288783.15256.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>> PeeGee wrote:
>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>> "Michael R N Dolbear"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in the
>>>>>> British
>>>>>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a fixed
>>>>>>> rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles of
>>>>>>> north
>>>>>> sea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for what
>>>>>> replaced it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
>>>>> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged
>>>>> to provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
>>>>>
>>>>> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some
>>>>> level of broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks for
>>>>> it, given that they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in
>>>>> places that have cable or a wireless internet scheme. They should be
>>>>> obliged to upgrade their lines (both in terms of quality and
>>>>> sufficient number of pairs) and to remove any non-compatible
>>>>> cabling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new
>>>>> technology emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax
>>>>> and dial-up.
>>>>>
>>>> But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for
>>>> providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who
>>>> want to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced
>>>> to fully follow the existing situation where competition only serves
>>>> high profit, low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure
>>>> at non-commercial rates?
>>>>
>>>> Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is based
>>>> on the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
>>>>
>>> That is the whole frickin problem with BT. You cant privatise a de
>>> facto monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one
>>> of what the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise
>>> the uneconomic bits.
>>>
>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>>
>>> Along with the national grid by and large.
>> 
>> Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see:
>> http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
>> 
>> 
> Precisely. Neither should be.
> 
>> George
>> 
>>

And if they were still in public hands we would still have dial phones 
and Prestel.

If people are unhappy with what BT do, they are allowed to set up their 
own network, dig up streets, provide customer connections etc.

I don't accept that other people should subsidise broadband for people 
that want 'faster' services. This is a commercial, non essential service 
at the end of the day. I hear plenty of small home businesses moan but 
when you ask them to give away their stuff at a loss, or require a 200 
year return on it they tend to shut up.



-- 
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe

Klunk wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:04:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
> empty day by writing:
> 
>> George Weston wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message

>>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>>>
>>>> Along with the national grid by and large.
>>> Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see:
>>> http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
>>>
>>>
>> Precisely. Neither should be.
>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>
> 
> And if they were still in public hands we would still have dial phones 
> and Prestel.
> 

I didn't say they should be state *run*, merely state - or council - 
*subsiisded*, on a regulated and not for profit basis.

Where profit opportunities in a COMPETITIVE market exist, and thats 
definitely true of ISPs and telephone companies, then I have no problem 
with private companies run for profit: Where a de factyo monol;oy 
exists, then at soe level that monoploy has to be regulated.

> If people are unhappy with what BT do, they are allowed to set up their 
> own network, dig up streets, provide customer connections etc.
> 

Actually, that is very very hard to do.
Also, BT has an unfair advantage in that its wayleaves and rights were 
granted years ago under state ownership. Its infrastructure already 
exusts,paid fr by te taxpayers of years ago.



> I don't accept that other people should subsidise broadband for people 
> that want 'faster' services. 

Thats not the primary issue: the more problematic issue is whether other 
people should subsidise broadband at all, for people in remote places 
where few subscribers exist. It costs the same more or less to lay one 
mile of twisted pair or one mile of terabit optical fibre.

You have the situation where the subscriber wants to rent bandwidth, but 
the income stream is totally separate from the cost stream, which is all 
about capital investment.

to be fair, a connection SHOULD cost you about 7 grand, and then the 
rest would be ree, apart from support calls charged at £100 an hour.

Your connection charges are essentially interest on the 7 grand that BT 
has loaned you in order to have access to the cable.and insurance 
against teh support call you will one day make.


This is a commercial, non essential service

I think its rapidly beciming an essential service. I would not be able 
to live as I do withot it.

Any more than if I did not have access to a road.

> at the end of the day. I hear plenty of small home businesses moan but 
> when you ask them to give away their stuff at a loss, or require a 200 
> year return on it they tend to shut up.
> 

Thats not the situation. BT can borrow money against future earnings and 
finance expansion, but what the country doesn't want is them leveraging 
a de-facto monopoly, and an infrastructure gifted to them at 
privatization, to excessive profit.

Hence the local loop SHOULD be separated from everything else, like 
Network rail is, and run as a not for profit regulated but otherwise 
commercial business. With whatever subsidies the (local) taxpayers deem 
appropriate.



> 
>

"naza"  wrote in message 
news:26f0f2c4-acc8-420d-a363-43d87f19d050@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>
> And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
> more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
> they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
> tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
> unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
> your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
>
> If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
> well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
> do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
> it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
> included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
> of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
> you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
> getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
> much like virgin media's cable rollout.

Agreed.

Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom / 
BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the 
government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about with 
the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day, the tax 
position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently starving the 
company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long waiting lists for 
service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and exchange equipment.

Also, when it was a government department, it wasn't allowed to borrow money 
on the outside market, which is an essential requirement for a large plc.

I remember some farcical situations when I was an exchange equipment 
planner.
We would plan for equipping exchanges depending on the current sales 
forecast.
However, if the proposed equipment cost more than the current budget, we had 
to adjust the sales forecast downwards to meet it, resulting in "planned 
waiting lists"!
This is the equivalent of driving at 40mph in a 30mph area and then 
adjusting your speedometer so that it reads 30. Everything's all right then, 
folks!

I now work for our local county council (nothing to do with IT or telecoms, 
thank goodness), where similar budget restrictions apply. If the cash isn't 
available for a particular job, and it doesn't appear on the "priority 
list", then it doesn't get done - full stop! The nasty politics bit comes in 
when deciding the priority list.

Regulate BT by all means but don't let it fall back into the hands of 
government - national or local - or we'll be back in the bad old days.

George

Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.

And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.

If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
much like virgin media's cable rollout.

naza wrote:
> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
> 
> And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
> more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
> they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
> tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
> unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
> your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
> 
> If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
> well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
> do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
> it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
> included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
> of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
> you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
> getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
> much like virgin media's cable rollout.

Actually that is precisely because virgin ARE a private company. They 
will shamelessly and necessarily cherry-pick.

I doubt this village would HAVE broadband if it were not for OFCOM.


BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is 
that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going 
to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre 
across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than 
just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as 
the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"

George Weston wrote:
> "naza"  wrote in message 
> news:26f0f2c4-acc8-420d-a363-43d87f19d050@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>> And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
>> more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
>> they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
>> tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
>> unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
>> your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
>>
>> If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
>> well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
>> do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
>> it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
>> included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
>> of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
>> you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
>> getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
>> much like virgin media's cable rollout.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom / 
> BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the 
> government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about with 
> the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day, the tax 
> position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently starving the 
> company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long waiting lists for 
> service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and exchange equipment.
> 
> Also, when it was a government department, it wasn't allowed to borrow money 
> on the outside market, which is an essential requirement for a large plc.
> 
> I remember some farcical situations when I was an exchange equipment 
> planner.
> We would plan for equipping exchanges depending on the current sales 
> forecast.
> However, if the proposed equipment cost more than the current budget, we had 
> to adjust the sales forecast downwards to meet it, resulting in "planned 
> waiting lists"!
> This is the equivalent of driving at 40mph in a 30mph area and then 
> adjusting your speedometer so that it reads 30. Everything's all right then, 
> folks!
> 
> I now work for our local county council (nothing to do with IT or telecoms, 
> thank goodness), where similar budget restrictions apply. If the cash isn't 
> available for a particular job, and it doesn't appear on the "priority 
> list", then it doesn't get done - full stop! The nasty politics bit comes in 
> when deciding the priority list.
> 
> Regulate BT by all means but don't let it fall back into the hands of 
> government - national or local - or we'll be back in the bad old days.
> 
> George 
> 
> 
I never said privatise it: I said run it as a not for profit commercial 
orgnazation. Like Railtrack,which failed dismally as a profit making 
concern.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1216393609.11375.1@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> George Weston wrote:
>> "naza"  wrote in message 
>> news:26f0f2c4-acc8-420d-a363-43d87f19d050@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>> And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
>>> more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
>>> they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
>>> tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
>>> unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
>>> your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
>>>
>>> If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
>>> well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
>>> do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
>>> it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
>>> included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
>>> of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
>>> you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
>>> getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
>>> much like virgin media's cable rollout.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom / 
>> BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the 
>> government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about 
>> with the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day, 
>> the tax position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently 
>> starving the company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long 
>> waiting lists for service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and 
>> exchange equipment.
>>
>> Also, when it was a government department, it wasn't allowed to borrow 
>> money on the outside market, which is an essential requirement for a 
>> large plc.
>>
>> I remember some farcical situations when I was an exchange equipment 
>> planner.
>> We would plan for equipping exchanges depending on the current sales 
>> forecast.
>> However, if the proposed equipment cost more than the current budget, we 
>> had to adjust the sales forecast downwards to meet it, resulting in 
>> "planned waiting lists"!
>> This is the equivalent of driving at 40mph in a 30mph area and then 
>> adjusting your speedometer so that it reads 30. Everything's all right 
>> then, folks!
>>
>> I now work for our local county council (nothing to do with IT or 
>> telecoms, thank goodness), where similar budget restrictions apply. If 
>> the cash isn't available for a particular job, and it doesn't appear on 
>> the "priority list", then it doesn't get done - full stop! The nasty 
>> politics bit comes in when deciding the priority list.
>>
>> Regulate BT by all means but don't let it fall back into the hands of 
>> government - national or local - or we'll be back in the bad old days.
>>
>> George
> I never said privatise it: I said run it as a not for profit commercial 
> orgnazation. Like Railtrack,which failed dismally as a profit making 
> concern.

and was replaced by Network Rail...

"There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a 
public-sector or a private-sector entity. Although officially a private 
sector organisation, the fact that its debts are underwritten by the 
government, and it is funded by the government, has led to it being 
described as being 'nationalisation in all but name'. It is also claimed 
that the government is keen for Network Rail not to be classified as a 
public sector organisation, as this would mean that the company's enormous 
debts (over £20 billion) would be counted as public expenditure 
liabilities".

Safe from insolvency maybe but hardly a recipe for innovation, expansion, 
modernisation and success?

George

George Weston wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
> news:1216393609.11375.1@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>> George Weston wrote:
>>> "naza"  wrote in message 
>>> news:26f0f2c4-acc8-420d-a363-43d87f19d050@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>>> And let the politicians at the phone network as well. That can only do
>>>> more harm then good. BT runs a good network. They own all of it and
>>>> they maintain it, with money they have, which is not wholly from the
>>>> tax payer and the be honest they do a good job. I mean some road go
>>>> unmaintained for years, if a crackle appears on your phone line and
>>>> your with BT they will sort it fairly quickly and swiftly.
>>>>
>>>> If you expect local loop to the be controlled locally then you may
>>>> well be causing problems for yourself. At current when BT are asked to
>>>> do something like fibre its nationally, not just in your local area,
>>>> it does not matter that they try to work not to do that, everyone is
>>>> included in a proposal. it may be that you live in a village with lots
>>>> of elderly people who don't thing having Fibre is very important, but
>>>> you may need it for daily work. Then you would have some problems
>>>> getting money for Fibre. It would turn it into a postcode service,
>>>> much like virgin media's cable rollout.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> Having had a long career with Post Office Telephones / British Telecom / 
>>> BT - and got out when the time was right! - I can remember when the 
>>> government of the day (of whatever colour) would continually muck about 
>>> with the company's funding, dependant upon the fiscal system of the day, 
>>> the tax position, inflation, whatever. This would result in frequently 
>>> starving the company of cash in difficult times, resulting in long 
>>> waiting lists for service, due to insufficient cash for line plant and 
>>> exchange equipment.
>>>
>>> Also, when it was a government department, it wasn't allowed to borrow 
>>> money on the outside market, which is an essential requirement for a 
>>> large plc.
>>>
>>> I remember some farcical situations when I was an exchange equipment 
>>> planner.
>>> We would plan for equipping exchanges depending on the current sales 
>>> forecast.
>>> However, if the proposed equipment cost more than the current budget, we 
>>> had to adjust the sales forecast downwards to meet it, resulting in 
>>> "planned waiting lists"!
>>> This is the equivalent of driving at 40mph in a 30mph area and then 
>>> adjusting your speedometer so that it reads 30. Everything's all right 
>>> then, folks!
>>>
>>> I now work for our local county council (nothing to do with IT or 
>>> telecoms, thank goodness), where similar budget restrictions apply. If 
>>> the cash isn't available for a particular job, and it doesn't appear on 
>>> the "priority list", then it doesn't get done - full stop! The nasty 
>>> politics bit comes in when deciding the priority list.
>>>
>>> Regulate BT by all means but don't let it fall back into the hands of 
>>> government - national or local - or we'll be back in the bad old days.
>>>
>>> George
>> I never said privatise it: I said run it as a not for profit commercial 
>> orgnazation. Like Railtrack,which failed dismally as a profit making 
>> concern.
> 
> and was replaced by Network Rail...
> 
> "There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a 
> public-sector or a private-sector entity. Although officially a private 
> sector organisation, the fact that its debts are underwritten by the 
> government, and it is funded by the government, has led to it being 
> described as being 'nationalisation in all but name'. It is also claimed 
> that the government is keen for Network Rail not to be classified as a 
> public sector organisation, as this would mean that the company's enormous 
> debts (over £20 billion) would be counted as public expenditure 
> liabilities".
> 
> Safe from insolvency maybe but hardly a recipe for innovation, expansion, 
> modernisation and success?

In that sense OfCOM means that BT is also nationalized.


Intead of being subsidised, its profits are negotiated..so it can 
exploit its monopoly only just so far.


In the end it makes little difference. The network rail/railtrack issue 
is essentially on of accounting as you say, but the arms length 
operation does allow it more flexibility than e.g. the NHS.


> 
> George
> 
> 
>

> Actually that is precisely because virgin ARE a private company. They
> will shamelessly and necessarily cherry-pick.

Yes, but when the Cable network was created it was created for maximum
profit so they installed mostly in cities. BT has already got a
network which goes to nearly everywhere, but BT are expected by most
people, if they make changes do it nationally, as they are doing with
21CN, because their copper network already reaches there. With BT is
about upgrading, and as such not extending network reach.

> I doubt this village would HAVE broadband if it were not for OFCOM.

Ofcom have done nothing to force BT to provide everyone with a
Broadband connection, BT only have to provide everyone who wants a
phone line, to install one at a fixed rate.

> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"

Well regulation is the fault of the public. The problem as said before
is, if a company has large profits people start complaining, that they
are charging to much or something else, a pretty complicated issue to
sort out really.

"naza"  wrote in message 
news:9264d0c0-8cc0-4998-b48f-23e9e8b6db9d@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Actually that is precisely because virgin ARE a private company. They
> will shamelessly and necessarily cherry-pick.

Yes, but when the Cable network was created it was created for maximum
profit so they installed mostly in cities. BT has already got a
network which goes to nearly everywhere, but BT are expected by most
people, if they make changes do it nationally, as they are doing with
21CN, because their copper network already reaches there. With BT is
about upgrading, and as such not extending network reach.

> I doubt this village would HAVE broadband if it were not for OFCOM.

Ofcom have done nothing to force BT to provide everyone with a
Broadband connection, BT only have to provide everyone who wants a
phone line, to install one at a fixed rate.

> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"

Well regulation is the fault of the public. The problem as said before
is, if a company has large profits people start complaining, that they
are charging to much or something else, a pretty complicated issue to
sort out really.

And Ofcom (formerly Oftel) seems to only find the need to regulate when (a) 
it's ordered to by the government or (b) when something is plainly wrong, 
such as when ISPs weren't giving out MACs when asked. They now have to.
I can remember when BT was privatised and Oftel regulated much more 
vigorously back then, preventing BT's prices from rising above a certain 
formula, giving "other licensed operators" (e.g. Mercury - remember them?) 
an easy ride in providing competing services, and actually preventing BT 
from setting up cable networks except in very small areas.
The latter has resulted in the vast majority of cable companies being 
swallowed up by NTL (now re-branded as Virgin), thus creating their own 
monopoly. Virgin also do not have to cable areas that they don't want to, 
which now means that unless your town or city is already cabled, it won't 
be, as they are paying so much in debt-interest charges that they can't or 
won't afford to extend their network any further - full stop.

George

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:03:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"

How about gov.uk lending the money to a completely independent version of 
OpenReach to deploy fibre everywhere? I'd be happy to see my taxes spent 
on that. Certainly better than pissing it up the wall on the Millenium 
Dome, Olympics, et al.

-- 
 <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
 19:04:44 up 6 days, 21:39,  3 users,  load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.07
 Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

alexd wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:03:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
>> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
>> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
>> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
>> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
>> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
> 
> How about gov.uk lending the money to a completely independent version of 
> OpenReach to deploy fibre everywhere? I'd be happy to see my taxes spent 
> on that. Certainly better than pissing it up the wall on the Millenium 
> Dome, Olympics, et al.
> 
Well that what it boils down to with a not for profit private regulated 
monopoly: except the government only underwrites the loan. Not makes it.

The difference between regulating a fior profit company like BT and 
making it a not for profit, is fairly marginal. In the for profit case 
you pay a little more for the line to keep the ehareholders happy, but 
apply a profitdectomy via OfCom to limit it. If you make it not for 
profit, there re no shareholders as such - its all done with bonds and 
loans - and the price of the service is probably as low as it can be got.


Neither is particularly satisfactory.

I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I 
just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice, but 
not essential. In a few years time I will place a bet that it will be 
considered to be a bit of a double edged sword. it will probably be 
blamed for a generation of tele-comuting fatsos, obese, unwell and dieing 
young all because they sat at home in front of a screen for the best part 
of their lives.

If BT want to raise money it's about time they cut their staffing costs. 
When I was there I lost count of the people they were paying to do 
nothing. On top of that I still believe that *most* of the 'engineers' (a 
word I use in the very loosest sense of the word) are under worked and 
over paid. If they trimmed their wages back to about 14-16k and fired the 
hundreds of people who are basically out to grass, they could plough some 
money back into the network year on year. 

-- 
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe

Klunk wrote:
> I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I 
> just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice, but 
> not essential. 

It is for me.

I can transefr large drawinfs (megabytes) to where they are needed..and 
manage most things i need to manage online, and even do shopping.

It basically replaces an awful lot of physical transport, which is 
becoming increasingly expensive.

It is MORE relevant in rural areas. We are very lucky in that we have a 
petrol station village shop and post office thriving here, but anything 
else is a 20 mile round trip shopping wise.

That is no longer a trip you don't think twice about.



In a few years time I will place a bet that it will be
> considered to be a bit of a double edged sword. it will probably be 
> blamed for a generation of tele-comuting fatsos, obese, unwell and dieing 
> young all because they sat at home in front of a screen for the best part 
> of their lives.
> 

A against a generation of car commutig fastos obese unwell and dying 
young because they sat in traffic jams twice a day in order to get to 
work where they sat in front of a screen for the best part of their 
lives, before driving home and sitting in friont of another sort of 
screen, for the rest?


> If BT want to raise money it's about time they cut their staffing costs. 
> When I was there I lost count of the people they were paying to do 
> nothing. On top of that I still believe that *most* of the 'engineers' (a 
> word I use in the very loosest sense of the word) are under worked and 
> over paid. If they trimmed their wages back to about 14-16k and fired the 
> hundreds of people who are basically out to grass, they could plough some 
> money back into the network year on year. 
> 
Oh, true..its a pretty crap organisation, but then most big 
organisations are.Its very hard to sack people you know.

Or go up against a powerful union.

In news:4880ea7e$0$26088$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk,
Klunk  typed, for some strange, unexplained 
reason:
: I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I
: just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice,
: but not essential.

It's essential if you work from home. It's essential if you want to use 
VoIP telephony. I could probably think of a few more things.

Ivor

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1216407994.5062.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> alexd wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:03:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> BT works well becuse it is regulated; but the problem with regulation is
>>> that it impacts profit, and therefore access to capital. Imagine going
>>> to a merchant bank and saying 'I want to borrow £60bn to roll out fibre
>>> across the UK" and the bank says 'ahem actually I'd prefer a stake than
>>> just a bond, what profit will you make?" and BT says' only as much as
>>> the government allows, I am afraid: probably 3% per annum"
>>
>> How about gov.uk lending the money to a completely independent version of 
>> OpenReach to deploy fibre everywhere? I'd be happy to see my taxes spent 
>> on that. Certainly better than pissing it up the wall on the Millenium 
>> Dome, Olympics, et al.
>>
> Well that what it boils down to with a not for profit private regulated 
> monopoly: except the government only underwrites the loan. Not makes it.
>
> The difference between regulating a fior profit company like BT and making 
> it a not for profit, is fairly marginal. In the for profit case you pay a 
> little more for the line to keep the ehareholders happy, but apply a 
> profitdectomy via OfCom to limit it. If you make it not for profit, there 
> re no shareholders as such - its all done with bonds and loans - and the 
> price of the service is probably as low as it can be got.
>
>
> Neither is particularly satisfactory.

The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis.
Owned by its employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and no 
nasty, money-demanding shareholders.

George

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6eceq6F6fj9qU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:4880ea7e$0$26088$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk,
> Klunk  typed, for some strange, unexplained
> reason:
> : I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I
> : just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice,
> : but not essential.
>
> It's essential if you work from home. It's essential if you want to use
> VoIP telephony. I could probably think of a few more things.

Historically transport was seen as the driver of industrial development and 
a thriving economy.  Traditionally transport has been promoted by 
governments.  With increasing costs, and the fact that it is almost totally 
dependent on fossil fuels, transport is rapidly becoming an unaffordable 
luxury.  Businesses will have to develop ways of operating that will not 
depend on transport.

Increasingly, the internet will become the key to maintaining business, and 
broadband will be a vital component.  It is therefore not unreasonable to 
suppose that governments should promote broadband, and that the population 
as a whole should expect broadband to be universally available on a par with 
roads, water, electricity and the telephone.  The difference is that tax 
from motorists more than pays for the roads, see: 
http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-4.htm which suggests that 
the tax income is £35bn and the spend on roads is only £7bn annually.  (The 
transport watch website has some interesting and highly contentious ideas!) 
So the solution to the universal provision of broadband will be to tax it 
!!!

-- 
Graham J

In news:6echfbF6g439U1@mid.individual.net,
George Weston  typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:

[snip]

: The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis.
: Owned by its employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and
: no nasty, money-demanding shareholders.
:
: George

Indeed, seconded.

Ivor

Graham J wrote:
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:6eceq6F6fj9qU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In news:4880ea7e$0$26088$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk,
>> Klunk  typed, for some strange, unexplained
>> reason:
>> : I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort. I
>> : just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's nice,
>> : but not essential.
>>
>> It's essential if you work from home. It's essential if you want to use
>> VoIP telephony. I could probably think of a few more things.
> 
> Historically transport was seen as the driver of industrial development and 
> a thriving economy.  Traditionally transport has been promoted by 
> governments.  With increasing costs, and the fact that it is almost totally 
> dependent on fossil fuels, transport is rapidly becoming an unaffordable 
> luxury.  Businesses will have to develop ways of operating that will not 
> depend on transport.
> 
> Increasingly, the internet will become the key to maintaining business, and 
> broadband will be a vital component.  It is therefore not unreasonable to 
> suppose that governments should promote broadband, and that the population 
> as a whole should expect broadband to be universally available on a par with 
> roads, water, electricity and the telephone.  The difference is that tax 
> from motorists more than pays for the roads, see: 
> http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-4.htm which suggests that 
> the tax income is £35bn and the spend on roads is only £7bn annually.  (The 
> transport watch website has some interesting and highly contentious ideas!) 
> So the solution to the universal provision of broadband will be to tax it 
> !!!
> 
I can see it all now,..a keyed in security code that you need to get 
yoiur touter working..and a annualk MOB inspection 'hmm., your 
microfilter is down to only 0.1db above optimal sir, I could fail that.."

Frankly, I could probably give up the car(s) more easily than broadband, 
these days.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:49:18 +0100, Ivor Jones passed an empty day by
writing:

> In news:6echfbF6g439U1@mid.individual.net, George Weston
>  typed, for some strange, unexplained
> reason:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> : The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis. : Owned by its
> employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and : no nasty,
> money-demanding shareholders. :
> : George
> 
> Indeed, seconded.
> 
> Ivor
I'm struggling to recall the facts, but the ethics of John Lewis have 
been called into question AFAIR. Were there not some issues over imported 
bottled water from a region where locals were had no fresh water to drink 
themeselves? And something to do with Aberdeen Angus beef which 
materialised to be half Aberdeen Angus. I *think* there were some others 
too - it was referred to collectively as 'the other John Lewis list'.

As for Broadband being the next part of the industrial revolution, well, 
there may be some truth in that. But like Graham J says the only interest 
of local or central government will be to tax it. I tip my hat to Graham 
for pointing it out.

Before we jump up and down about the need to move big files quickly it 
may be a good idea to do the 'why' question. As far as I can tell the 
home computer is just a box that allows us to do lots of things quickly 
that we never really needed to do in the first place. At best it is a 
useful communication device and sophisticated toy. Yes, it can do 
spreadsheets and presentations - but are they really of that much 
relevance?

Having sat through many appalling BT computer based training packages it 
struck me that you could get the same message across in a couple of 
minutes far more effectively than 2 hours of crappy, dull powerpoint junk 
that was instantly forgettable.

PC's and Broadband are useful, but not essential in any way.


-- 
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:19:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> Graham J wrote:
>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:6eceq6F6fj9qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In news:4880ea7e$0$26088$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk, Klunk
>>>  typed, for some strange, unexplained
>>> reason:
>>> : I've every respect for you NP, which is why I'm not going to retort.
>>> I : just do not accept that broadband is essential in any way. It's
>>> nice, : but not essential.
>>>
>>> It's essential if you work from home. It's essential if you want to
>>> use VoIP telephony. I could probably think of a few more things.
>> 
>> Historically transport was seen as the driver of industrial development
>> and a thriving economy.  Traditionally transport has been promoted by
>> governments.  With increasing costs, and the fact that it is almost
>> totally dependent on fossil fuels, transport is rapidly becoming an
>> unaffordable luxury.  Businesses will have to develop ways of operating
>> that will not depend on transport.
>> 
>> Increasingly, the internet will become the key to maintaining business,
>> and broadband will be a vital component.  It is therefore not
>> unreasonable to suppose that governments should promote broadband, and
>> that the population as a whole should expect broadband to be
>> universally available on a par with roads, water, electricity and the
>> telephone.  The difference is that tax from motorists more than pays
>> for the roads, see:
>> http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-4.htm which suggests
>> that the tax income is £35bn and the spend on roads is only £7bn
>> annually.  (The transport watch website has some interesting and highly
>> contentious ideas!) So the solution to the universal provision of
>> broadband will be to tax it !!!
>> 
> I can see it all now,..a keyed in security code that you need to get
> yoiur touter working..and a annualk MOB inspection 'hmm., your
> microfilter is down to only 0.1db above optimal sir, I could fail
> that.."
> 
> Frankly, I could probably give up the car(s) more easily than broadband,
> these days.

In fairness, I have felt the same at points in my life. It was only when 
I got back out into the world in my free time that I realised just what a 
waste of life a PC and broadband was.

That said, I still maintain a number of home PC's like any other anorak 
and even have a bloody link balancer to bridge my DSL and Cable service 
in either one fails. It makes me a total hypocrite!

-- 
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe

Klunk wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:49:18 +0100, Ivor Jones passed an empty day by
> writing:
> 
>> In news:6echfbF6g439U1@mid.individual.net, George Weston
>>  typed, for some strange, unexplained
>> reason:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> : The most perfect model in my book is John Lewis. : Owned by its
>> employees, gives excellent service and good prices, and : no nasty,
>> money-demanding shareholders. :
>> : George
>>
>> Indeed, seconded.
>>
>> Ivor
> I'm struggling to recall the facts, but the ethics of John Lewis have 
> been called into question AFAIR. Were there not some issues over imported 
> bottled water from a region where locals were had no fresh water to drink 
> themeselves? And something to do with Aberdeen Angus beef which 
> materialised to be half Aberdeen Angus. I *think* there were some others 
> too - it was referred to collectively as 'the other John Lewis list'.
> 
> As for Broadband being the next part of the industrial revolution, well, 
> there may be some truth in that. But like Graham J says the only interest 
> of local or central government will be to tax it. I tip my hat to Graham 
> for pointing it out.
> 
> Before we jump up and down about the need to move big files quickly it 
> may be a good idea to do the 'why' question. As far as I can tell the 
> home computer is just a box that allows us to do lots of things quickly 
> that we never really needed to do in the first place. At best it is a 
> useful communication device and sophisticated toy. Yes, it can do 
> spreadsheets and presentations - but are they really of that much 
> relevance?
> 
> Having sat through many appalling BT computer based training packages it 
> struck me that you could get the same message across in a couple of 
> minutes far more effectively than 2 hours of crappy, dull powerpoint junk 
> that was instantly forgettable.
> 
> PC's and Broadband are useful, but not essential in any way.
> 
> 
That depends on what you use them for.

My wife is occasionally a graphic artists: She prepares material for 
printing. You probably do not know how thatused to be done..we would 
make up[ bits of text, probably dne on a dasiy wheel printer, or befre 
that a hotr metal type setter, and make up half tomes from photgraphs 
and physically stuff them in the plates..later on you would simply take 
a photograph on a £20,000 camera that would be enlarged and put straight 
through a mask to etch litho plates.

Any mistakes were costly, as it was almost impossible to edit anything. 
You went back and redid EVERYTHING.

Now its a simple WYSIWYG layup in Quark or equivalent, followed by an 
upload or an email of a few megabytes of data to the printer. And 
straight onto a laser printer for smnaller runs, or a computer driven 
litho printer for real quality.

Now my wife gave up work because the cost of the commute to a large firm 
in London, barely  was covered by the net disposable salaray she had 
after tax etc. She wanted to continue from home, but they didn't want that.

This does not detract frm te pointhowever,which is that this particular 
industry could not function without computers at all thee days..the 
skills and so on to do it without no longer exist. Due to the size of 
the files, unless you use a high speed network, you have to physically 
dump them onto some media and take it to the target computers.


Now take my background, which is engineering. I used to sit at a drawing 
board for days on end, doing drawings: in fact most of my life was not 
spent designing stuff, just updating drawings. The scales fell from my 
eyes in 1983, when I visited a computer show and saw an HP plotter 
drawing a diagram in 5 minutes that would have taken me 5 days to 
draw..OK I knew there was software and work to get to that point, but 
the writing was on the wall fr me. computers had finally arrived. Thst 
hen I transferred careers into understanding how to make them work,