Superfast? I don’t think so

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

If companies such as Virgin are selling packages that make use of fast broadband, should they not be contributing to the cost of the roll out of faster services across the country?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Another week has gone by and we still haven’t had a peep out of Ofcom in the parallel Conversation to explain these points about coverage and correct any misunderstandings we might have about the high speed broadband roll-out. Perhaps no-one is reading our comments.

I would like to see VM, Sky, etc. required to contribute to the costs of fibre broadband because these companies are contributing to the demand for fast broadband and users of their streaming services can create problems for other users, including those who have very modest needs.

I take your point that BT should not be blamed for the fact that many still have a poor service, particularly in rural issues. If I was in charge of BT I would be pushing very hard for the costs of the roll out of fast broadband to be shared with other companies.

I thought it was being paid for by the government and being implemented by Openreach. We need confirmation or clarification from Ofcom because there seem to be various different understandings of the position, especially progress against the ‘end of 2017’ deadline for 95% coverage, the government’s minimum speed specification, and why so many users reporting here have very poor service with just a few months to go.

That’s my understanding too, John. What I’m suggesting is that the companies creating the demand for fast broadband and profiting from use of their services should be making a significant contribution to the cost of the roll out of fast broadband.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Point taken, Duncan, but should not the government be running the show to avoid this sort of problems? Leave it up to companies and they will focus on making a profit rather than providing a service for everyone. It concerns me that in installing FTTC rather than FTTP we are spending money on an obsolescent service rather than looking to the future.

We have privatised companies providing essential services, but the government should be in control of what they are allowed to do.

And perhaps what they are required to do.

I agree with you, Wavechange; the companies that are pouring high-volume content down inadequate infrastructure should certainly be contributing to the upgrades – and this includes the betting and gambling companies, film and music streamers, and the on-line games producers. The way to make it work would be to charge the carriers [BT, VM, TalkTalk, etc] who would then have to pass it on to the producers/suppliers [Netflix etc]. Apart from anything else this traffic is making life more difficult through congestion for people who don’t use the services but want quick-&-easy browsing, mailing, shopping and web-searching.

I certainly don’t want more government money being used to provide entertainment, John. There is also the option of charging according to use, which would not be popular but would help finance the roll out of fast broadband and be fairer.

Yes, that’s what I meant, Wavechange. My comment was a bit unclear and the second sentence should have read : The way to make it work would be for Openreach [or other infrastructure provider] to charge the service providers [BT, VM, TalkTalk, etc] for carrying the traffic and they in turn would have to pass it on to the content producers/suppliers [films and video, games, betting, etc, sites] who would need to raise their prices to their customers. Sounds a bit cumbersome but I am sure the computers at each point in the chain could handle it. This would generate a flow of external money that could be spent on higher capacity and speed; the downside could be that the producers/suppliers would demand delivery of the capacity they would be paying for as a priority over other broadband upgrades. That would be for Ofcom to resolve.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

When I had an installation done the main socket was put in the room of my choice, near a socket, and the router has 6 ft of cable,; It can also be wall mounted. That solves most potential problems. My main phone also plugs into the same socket; if you have a landline phone you’d want that in a warm part of the house and near a socket outlet.

Even the Labour Party are not proposing to renationalise BT, Duncan, so I don’t know where that idea comes from! The cost would be astronomical.

In one form or another the cost of supplying fibre to the premises will be borne by those customers that require it. The government is paying for fibre to the cabinet.

The fall in profits in the BT Group’s worldwide operations stems from accounting irregularities in their Italian subsidiary for which the Group has had to make provisions of £500 million. Not all international telecoms markets are as robust as the UK one which is dominated by BT.

Vodafone, Virgin Media, TalkTalk and Sky are all UK companies. I believe the full takeover of Sky by 21st Century Fox still awaits European regulatory approval.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Sorry, Duncan, I misread your post. I am not familiar with “re-rationalisation”. I expect in BT’s case it means to sort out their sprawling global empire and concentrate on communication services rather things like exchanges, cables and transmitters. I was also misled by your comment “You are prepared for one of the last British companies to go down but not a squeak of criticism about any US/foreign owned big business“.

Surely, the whole point of any “re-rationalisation” is to stop BT going down. Mr M would be wasting his time talking to Mrs M – the Sky deal is on the table and just awaiting clearance over which she has no control. BT/Openreach won’t provide fibre where it wouldn’t be profitable. That is the government’s obligation and even then Ofcom’s plan is only faster broadband [not necessarily entirely fibre] to 95% by the end of this year. I have seen no evidence that the PM has taken any interest in this policy; Ofcom does the dirty work.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I am not surprised Murdoch was frequently calling at No 10 like a desperate door-to-door brush salesman but as probably the most significant media tycoon in the world today that is not surprising. Any government would want to have him on side. I expect the PM was trying to bend his ear on a range of topics. It’s what governments do. I read about all these happenings but not much seems to come of them on either side. I think a lot of them are just positioning moves.

I just noticed an excess of italic text in my preceding post. I must have failed to close the italic script at the end of the first paragraph. I’m clearly losing it.

They play a dangerous game.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Those appear to be 2014 figures Duncan.

There would be a lot of buffering watching standard streaming videos on 0.7 Mbps or HD-quality streaming movies on 4Mbps.

Browsing the internet on 1Mbps would be painful and very tedious as pages would take forever to download.

The report also doesn’t mention large updates that could time out before they finish.

I think today, an absolute minimum speed of 5Mbps is necessary to
do the basics with 8Mbps to do most things at an acceptable speed. But in a couple of years time, more will be required.

As more and more content is thrown at the internet for our use, faster and faster speeds are required. Those on 100 Mbps are safe for quite a while, but those on less than 10 Mbps will be struggling in a few years time.

According to Ofcom, “decent broadband” is 10 Mbps and it wants to get 95% of the UK up to that standard.

I feel obliged to reiterate my constant reminder that we are still waiting for Ofcom to return to this site – any of the many relevant Conversations would do – and answer some of the fundamental and essential questions that have arisen during our discussions on exactly what is intended to be provided, when it will be finished, and who will be left out. I assume, for the want of any contradiction, that those who are furthest from a cabinet will get no improvement. For some clusters of properties, an additional closer cabinet might be installed so that the copper distance can be reduced. But it’s all speculation until Ofcom responds.

Malcolm wrote “So where is the line to be drawn between necessity and luxury?” This very much depends on the user. I move large files between computers and servers and exchange them with other users. I do large software downloads. I’ve done this for years and it’s not for entertainment. My leisure use is quite limited – nothing more demanding than watching a programme on iPlayer every couple of weeks. I’ve no problem now because I have a 50Mbps FTTP service and could have a faster service if I paid more.

What concerns me is all those who suffer from a poor service – too slow at peak times or all the time, or unreliable. In other discussions, you more than others push the need for consumers to have a choice. The fact that you and others have modest needs does not mean that we all do. Small companies might not need fast broadband but it is important that their service is reliable.

I am disappointed that the government has not though to require companies to charge high users according to use, a more intelligent approach than unlimited services. The extra revenue could help fund continued roll out of faster services. I’m disappointed that the government is not gaining significant revenue from the companies profiting from entertainment services that are dependent on fast broadband. The government should certainly not have made the universal service obligation without it being practical to implement.

The one thing that I do agree about is that the government should not be continuing to put public money into broadband when there are alternative sources of funding. I’m certainly not suggesting that BT foots the bill.

I am all for providers like Amazon and Netflix paying to upgrade the infrastructure as those streaming TV, videos and on-line gaming are the main reason we need faster internet. By undercutting Virgin and Sky, their customer base is growing, they are paying nothing towards their delivery platform and it is time that was recognised and rectified by Ofcom.

The government says that the lowest acceptable download speed is 10Mbps but that is very short-sighted as we will be going through the same thing all over again in about 5 years time.

Essential tasks like on-line banking, filling out forms, shopping(?) can all time out before the transaction is complete on probably less than 4Mbps. I would also call software updates essential and they can sometimes by huge so could also time out on <4Mbps.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user