Is it fair rural areas pay the same amount for slower broadband?

NFH

Agreed that variable charging seems unfair to ISPs – but is it?

They have a fixed overheads (network equipment and cabinet space). If all the customers were on a 76Mbps service, they are not actually capable of handling that bandwidth because they rely on users only having intermittent demand. Coupled with the loss induced by the copper tails from exchanges or street cabinets to premises, the actual bandwidth the ISPs needs to provide is actually relatively low.

The whole internet infrastructure is set up for time sharing of the bandwidth. If we all started to simultaneously download a huge file at 76 Mbps, the Internet would grind to a halt. So I think that BT and the ISPs should share the reduction in bandwidth costs pro rata to the speed actually received.

The ultimate solution (and it will have to come eventually) is for copper to be replaced with FTTP. Only then will we get what we pay for.

Terfar – you make good points. I maintain that the root of the problem needs to be tackled at the wholesale level. However, it would be up to individual ISPs as to what retail price they charge to end-customers, and whether they wish to extend any variation beyond the raw difference in the wholesale charge. The chances are that ISPs would mark up the wholesale charge by a percentage rather than by a fixed amount.

It’s a bit like a service charge in a restaurant. If you order a bottle of wine of £10 or £200, a restaurant will typically add a percentage service charge, even though the service time and effort are fixed and not related to the price of the bottle. ISPs could take a similar approach.

Of course, other important factors I omitted: the indoor wiring and router at the premises. Even if you get a good signal delivered by the providers, poor internal wiring, unfiltered phones or poor router (configuration or out-of-date firmware) are all in a conspiracy to reduce your bandwidth.

And if you use wireless connection, you can suffer spectrum congestion local to your neighbourhood. (I had problems with my neighbour’s WiFi changing channels regularly because he keeps switching it off and effecting my signal: he had no idea how to set it up to a fixed channel, so I went to the 5 GHz band to avoid him.)

So there is heck of a lot of factors that can cause low bandwidth, not just the ISP or local copper tail.

No it does not. How would you like to be told that your pension would be up to xxx and only receive a fraction of the amount.

Ofcom asked ISPs to give prospective customers a realistic estimate of what speed they could expect to receive. My ISP has done this but others continue to use the term ‘up to’.

If you want to know what annuity you will get you would not rely on generalised published data – you’d ask a potential provider. Same with your state pension – ask DWP. I know what “up to” means – no more than this value but can be less. Just what it is. ask your potential broadband provider. Then if they don’t give you what they say you have a reasonable case to pursue.

So I’m wrong, all the people who have complained about ‘up to’ broadband speeds were wrong, and Ofcom was wrong to issue guidance.

I think that up to is a proper use of the language. The problem is that not everyone is rightly suspicious of “up to”. Either we educate the public to realise “up to” is a warning for a con OR we restrict advertisers ability to use the English language to protect the gullible.

Whilst the former makes most sense the latter route may be more effective. [Perhaps Which? could devots an entire issue to the most blatant examples in all spheres and the weaselly responses : )]

I think it not unreasonable that the requirements of “up to” in relation to Broadband needs to shown at all times against a 50% of subscribers banner. Of course the logical effect would be for a smart provider to drop all rural subscribers : )

“Up to” should be replaced with something along the lines of “maximum theoretical speed irrespective of distance”. It is useful to know, for example, that one provider uses a 24Mbps maximum theoretical speed technology whereas another uses an 8Mbps maximum theoretical speed technology.

wavechange, of course you are not wrong :-). I have posted a reply from my ISP which I regard as sensibly informative.

Ofcom do not, I believe, condemn “up to” but simply recommend adjusting the value to which it applies. There will no doubt still be 50% of subscribers left wanting.

In April Which? the article about broadband speed makes no mention of how to check what you are likely to get before you buy. I regard this as an omission on Which?’s part andif I was a cynic I might suggest it was omitted to bias opinion in favour of its campaign. I would suggest Which? should present all the relevant facts to us consumers so that we can make a considered judgement on an issue. I do not want Which? to be economical with the facts and do my thinking for me. I have enough of that with politicians.

From the Budget:
” The government is committed to ensuring that every single household in the UK has access to the basic broadband needed to live and work in the modern world. So we will look to raise the Universal Service Obligation (USO) – the legal entitlement to a basic service – from dial up speeds to 5Mbps broadband. This commitment to all goes further than any other country in Europe. Once in place, a USO would mean that consumers gain a legal right to request installation of 5Mbps capable services at an affordable price.”

Perhaps instead of “up to Y”, a provider should state “between X and Y”. Similarly, when quoting prices, retailers should, instead of saying “from £x”, say “between £x and £y”. Quoting only one limit of a range is misleading. Consumers need to see both ends of the range.

Thank you Diesel for giving us that quote from the budget. Now all we need is the timeframe . . . ! The ‘affordable price’ [is that for installation or ongoing service do you suppose?] will be determined by the regulator I hope [as a maximum], but as with everything else I expect it will be lost in the bundling.

NFH – Yes: I think that is the only way to make any sense out of fluctuations in the broadband speed [for cars and furniture it is not so straightforward to avoid the open-ended “from” price point since the customer has so much choice of specification].

NFH and Diesel – I agree with your views that a better way of giving broadband speed would, if it were possible, to give a range. Even then I imagine there will be subscribers in more remote places where the minimum will not be achieved. The best way surely is for the ISP to give you an expected speed for your particular premises – by asking them, or them telling you when you apply. But you will never please everybody.

As for rolling out higher-speed broadband, someone has to pay for it. I do not see why it should all come out of my taxes, particularly for people who choose to live in remote locations. A contribution should be made through the broadband fees. Tax should be for essentials, like the NHS, until we return to excess wealth by discovering oodles of oil.

rep[lied was a finger slip! Their rep didn’t lie.

Perhaps it is worth comparing supply of broadband to rural areas with provision of gas, which is available to some but not everyone. Obviously the cost per household of providing gas and broadband is significantly greater in rural areas. Compromises are made with who gets gas and I expect the same will apply with high speed broadband.

I wonder if improving mobile network coverage might be a more cost effective way of providing both phone and mobile broadband.

Yes – we’ve never had a Prime Minister promising to put every home on the gas grid! Luckily, for heating, there are alternatives, albeit more expensive – although wind power and solar energy in rural areas might assist. Viable and economical alternatives to broadband by cable do exist and perhaps that is what the PM had in mind [subject to the state of affairs on 8th May]. Thanks to massive investment by the GPO during and after the Second World War, most parts of the country are within easy reach of a copper telephone line and it might be possible for a microwave link to connect the remotest premises to the closest point on the fibre network [the recovery of the copper cable might contribute to the cost].

When my area was fibred up (early in 2012), I noticed regular interruptions to the service. Eventually I found it coincided with the regular visits to the local cabinet to transfer people to the fibre service.

When it happened one day, I cycled straight to the cabinet (about 2 minutes) and explained to the engineer what was happening. He asked for my phone number and traced my connection. He used his tablet to call my number whilst he opened and closed the hinged wiring frames. The phone became disconnected as he opened the frame. He replaced the jumper for my phone and the problem never recurred.

We’ve only had one service break since I switched to fibre and that was due to a major failure at the main BT exchange.

Thanks Terfar. I will look out and see if there is anyone working nearby next time there is an interruption. Since the interruptions are during normal working hours, I suspect that you are right.

Provided that I get back to a reliable service soon, I may not bother with fibre broadband. I rarely watch TV or films and I cannot see any any real benefit in having fast broadband at present.

I don’t believe that this is the right approach. The ISPs install their infrastructure equipment and charge everyone the same price for the same service. Currently, those in rural areas get poor bandwidth because of the distances they are from the main infrastructure and distances from the local exchange.

If the ISPs are to invest in providing the same speed to everyone, costs go up almost exponentially with distance from the backbone infrastructure and distance from the closest telephone exchange. Basically, every little village will need a local exchange with a fibre link to the main backbone. That means the ISP would have to lay fibre links to every rural community and for some premises in remoter locations, fibre to the premises. Would you be willing to pay £150 a month for fast broadband or pay the thousands of pounds that it cost to get fast broadband to your premises? Or do you think that the rest of us should pay for your privelige?

The lower price isn’t dependent on whether you live in a big city or in a small community: it is down to the local exchange facilities.

Where the exchanges are roomy, BT hire out rack space for ISPs to install their own equipment. That allows the ISPs to offer a lower price.

Where exchanges are too small for additional equipment, the ISPs have to utilise and pay to use BT’s equipment and pay for the maintenance, so they have to apply extra charges.

But I agree that charging should be proportional to speed obtainable. This would be an incentive for BT to expand its fibre network. Some local exchanges still don’t have connection to the fibre backbone, relying on old copper trunks. It would also be an incentive to install more street cabinets, so that users were closer to the FTTC services. But all this costs money: who is going to pay?