Update: another win! ASA rules against BT broadband speed claims

And who pays the 10,s of £billions it will cost Mr.Hempel ? the tax payers ? , how about no Trident 2 , to late for the F35,s .

I’m lucky in that our green box is just across the road, so I get very good speed at some times of the day. But when the kids come home from school or when everyone is watching online tv it gets really slow.
So: a) I really do get my “up to ” 34Mbit at some times of every day.
And therefore b:) Its presumably not the link from house to green box that is causing the problem in the evenings, but the sharing of signals between the green box and the remote routers or the distant hosts themselves that cause the problems . They might not all be the responsibility of my ISP. Could it be another ISP or hosts such as BBC Iplayer or Netflix that cause the problem? In which case who should Which? be lobbying on our behalf?

Your right pdfisk , most people blame the line and in a lot of cases it is but dont take into account the number of users at different times of the day or weekend that does slow the speed down for everybody . They also dont take into account a not talked about problem –router congestion , yes too many people on it or too much data and it does slow down , add to that the computer itself carrying out many processes at the one time , and you have your internal wiring to take into consideration.

Why mark down an informative reply?

Perhaps they clicked on the wrong thumb and didn’t realise you can cancel a negative by hitting the positive thumb.

The numbers all attempting to use the same conduit (the contention ratio) for a given Broadband point is the big issue, now. And the big band-width hoggers are the likes of Netflix and other streaming services.

Quite true Ian.

Yes, people are blaming inadequate installed capacity for the low speed but really it is a case of excess demand. Streaming was not a major problem until a couple of years ago and it has caught on big time. Who is to pay for the capacity upgrade that will be required to ensure that other users who are not consuming much capacity can still get a reliable and adequate service? Or will it be necessary to restrict access to high capacity-using services by other means? At the moment it’s ‘first come – first served’, so if the kids next door are watching films or playing games but we want to do a Sainsbury’s order how is the conflict resolved?

I am not in favour of spending £billions of taxpayers’ money, while we have austerity, on upgrading broadband just so that people can watch films and play games, and the distribution companies can make fortunes, at the expense of business users and those who use the net for more essential matters. I agree John, there should be some way of restricting high-usage entertainment that reduces capacity.

Perhaps a charge on heavy users for how much is downloaded to help fund the upgrade?

There’s a further dimension that isn’t to do with broadband speeds but the consequences of having new entertainment channels. This is leading directly to a decline in the range and quality of content available to users of mainstream broadcast services through the exclusive ‘buying out’ of series, events, and programmes. This is why people are buying large smart TV’s so that they can watch or do what they want, exactly when they want to, accessed via their computer; they have made the investment and now they want the benefits, and there is nothing wrong with that but it has consequences for the rest of us.

I believe that the demands of those using broadband for entertainment purposes is essential to make progress. I am in favour of charges relating to usage so that heavy users contribute most towards development of the service, a point made by Malcolm.

I agree with that but there then needs to be some connexion between the income from heavier use of the system at the local level and investment in the local fibre network to ensure the demands of all users are properly met at the point of demand.

I had in mind that the income would be “ringfenced”, and put into the fund to pay for upgrading the system. Those who benefit from better broadband would contribute to the costs according to their usage above a threshold, perhaps.

In one way it makes sense to make use of income generated locally to support local improvements but that approach tends to disadvantage those who live in rural areas. I would prefer to see more general improvements than extending gigabit broadband in the centre of London, even if there is greatest use there.

I am with talk talk and my broadband speed is very slow 5.7 when I am watching football and films it is constantly buffering and dropping out,when my conract was up I compared several other companies who promised speeds of 34for fibre optic and up to 17 on phone line .but when I told them where I lived ,they all said I would get same speed as talktalk and I could not have fibre optic in my area so I have to wait for f/optic to come to my area

Ken it depends on the level of quality you watch films at .For 1080P (HD) 5Mbps or more is adequate-3Mbps for SD , watching at less higher quality the speed demand drops . I had 5Mbps for a long time before FTTC and didnt have any real problems except for a slightly slower speed on the Internet .

BT usually gets cut to ribbons it balances things up a bit when Virgin Media posters complain of slow speeds .

Derek , you have the monopoly bit wrong ,unless it is a new build that other companies have knocked back contributing to , Virgin Media/et al can provide you with “high speed fibre ” –but they dont , and you know why –no profit /too dear to provide . No, what you need is FTTP but you wont get that unless you ,as a tax payer provides 10,s of £billions to do it (Defence spending money ) .As it stands the Government wont do that so have you thought about other ways to get a higher broadband speed ?

Thats really bad news Andrew , the city I worked in for BT tried them out and after a year -REMOVED them.

Jenny are you paying for FTTC or are you still on copper all the way back to the exchange ?

Jenny a mile from a FTTC the speed would average out at 15Mbps , you are double that so we are talking approx 8Mbps so you are not a lot down from what you would have if you were paying for FTTC.

Susan if you have just paid for a TV license and dont have terrestrial TV anymore , are you saying you cant get a terrestrial signal ?

Pushing a pin in the hub causes a reset of your hub Peter in case there is a fault causing a lock-up of some sort , it could also change your routing from your exchange to the rest of the Telecommunications network possibly increasing your speed ( less congested routing ) . You hold it in for 10 seconds using a pin then let go > different coloured lights flash > when they turn Blue again thats it reset. -try it anyway you have nothing to lose. and please get back.

Hog wash largely!

It really does depend on an awful lot of factors, possibly largely within your home. Unless your router is plugged directly into the master socket and you have no extensions, the cause of your issue might well be within your home.

A factory reset (that’s what the pin does) is not likely to fix anything and you need to be sure that YOU know how to conjure it to work with your ISP.

You need to look at and understand the line stats to know what is going on. If there are issues on your line (which sound likely) then the BT equipment will slow the service down in an attempt to maintain stability. This is not the forum for sorting this – you ISP might have a forum where you can get real help. PlusNet certainly does – see http://community.plus.net

Kevin you obviously have zero knowledge of engineering principles but a lot pressing keys on a keyboard to access websites . In engineering basic principles be it mechanical ,electric. electronic, or atomic physics you start from point “A” and prove by testing in a physical environment the efficiency and competence of the circuit / mechanical part/etc till you reach point “Z” that is a scientific principle used for 100,s of years . any other method is acting in a childish naive manner . I asked Peter to do a simple thing , as he has already mentioned it, thats all it amounts to and if you had bothered to read to the end of my post I said –PLEASE GET BACK . It is also obvious that you have never read my posts going back a long time on Which , if you did you would , maybe . not come to such a hasty and ill judged point of view.

I read that as the typical instruction which ISP’s … rather than looking at the issues. I assure you I have many of engineering and the first principle is top define the problem … not mask it by resetting everything. Invariably routers do not need resetting, more often than not they make matters worse.

Kevin-Have you checked into the electronics of routers /modems they are affected by RF radiation from a variety of low power but adjacent transmitters I have yet to find a 100 % reliable one , lets agree to disagree here , but I can supply a lot of technical details as I have experience in communication receivers / digital business telephone systems / digital radio / electronic test equipment / audio amplifier design and build and much more . I own radiation detectors both AM/FM/ Digital / Microwave / and even Geiger counters.

I strongly support Duncan. I’ve seen many a problem fixed by turning routers and modems off and on again. I have mine on a time switch, so that it goes off overnight and restarts in the morning.

My router is left on all the time but certainly over the last 12 months I have had to reset it – switch the power off and on – more frequently to restore a connection. I had put this down to an old router approaching retirement.

Mine is a fairly new router but it occasionally has to be reset by switching off and on again. I think it is just a normal facet of life in the digital age.

Computer glitches, lockups, hardware damage can also be the result of poor mains quality , they can affect the life expectancy of equipment. Spikes, power failures, dropouts, blackouts, power sag/surge -HIGH FREQUENCY NOISE /common mode noise all effect digital equipment as well as faulty wiring-ground surges , electrostatic discharges -lightning , spikes are the most serious, even triac/SCR switching (dimmers ) can cause problems . For those that dont believe me –while working alongside a higher BT tech than myself who was giving me training in specialised faults affecting digital telephone business systems we used a £15,000 Mains Analyser with paper printout on systems that were always locking up (Processor lockup ) and every time the display showed DIRTY MAINS , it was a lot harder compensating for bad mains with wound ferrite core rings, one factory had high power welding equipment that was so bad that we had to add not only ferrite rings but radiated screening to protect the CPU unit in the digital telephone system . So to say routers don’t “get affected “leaves me astounded ! I should add in cases of high prestige companies like the local stock exchange VERY expensive mains conditioners were fitted giving out a pure sine wave -stablised at very low harmonic distortion.

I run my desktop computer through an uninterruptible power supply which gives gives some protection against mains spikes etc as well as keeping it running if the mains supply fails for a short period. I used to have the router connected to the UPS but moved it so that it was linked to the master phone socket. Laptop computers also have some protection providing that the battery is in good condition.

What Duncan says is spot on and is the reason that all sorts of household goods can malfunction and circuit boards occasionally fail. Some people have problems with premature failure of LED lamps and it is likely that mains spikes are the problem.

I use an UIPS for the same reasons. Essential, in fact, when dealing with large chunks of video.

Its the last sentence Kevin — who pays ? . I have already said that to “sort out ” BT distribution network will cost Defense upgrade prices that the UK intend to pay the US . You know it will cost up to £5000 each and you must know the cost to outlying farms cottages etc with umpteen poles across country fields etc . Dont say BT , they would be near bankrupted , why dont you ask Virgin Media etc to do it , but hold on they are only interested in profitable areas , the same with the other Telecom companies , how about Vodaphone they are bankrolled by the biggest bankers in the world . You know BT was only given limited grants by HMG not enough to cover FTTP and HMG admitted that. BT employ a large amount of engineering employees and they have good apprenticeships but Vodaphone want BT split up -guess who would benefit ? NOT the British public but BB USA . I dont disagree with your general trend Kevin but could you post a viable financial perspective of how 100 % of the British population get FTTP ?

No body said it was easy or without cost. The point of this line of discussion is that the issue will not get fixed by Which?’s approach to beating up retails ISPs for the failure in BT Openreach’s infrastructure.

You are indeed right fixing it will cost a lot of money, however Which? is not looking for real solutions they are looking for someone to beat up … if that is the approach they want to take, the least they could do is beat up the right body.

They might more usefully suggest that we all paid the real costs of providing these services and only sought the speeds we really need. There is far too much of “I want everything for nothing” around the place.

Kevin,

I beg to differ.

If I bought a car that was advertised as being capable of “up to 60mpg” I would be very disappointed if I could never get more than 10mpg from it.

I have some friends who are on a Virgin “up to 152Mbs” package – but even doing speed tests (e.g. using W? or other speed test websites and with a PC wired to the its modem) we’ve never seem more that about 30Mbs.

That still makes it a relatively fast connection – but it is woefully lacking against its promised performance. Arguable, they might get the same performance by only paying Virgin the “up to 50Mps” price.

Also, I believe Virgin operate their own network, so blaming BT for any lack of speed is not applicable in this case.

The Advertising Standards Authority has finally decided to look into the use of ‘up to’ and the report that it commissioned is available on the ASA website.

I think it is a pretty poor report. Limited in its research and limited in looking at what is the best way of advertising broadband. It touches on a key issue that has been discussed here on several occasion s- how can I find out from a potential provider just what I might expect on my own premises. It is possible to get estimates, and these should be far more useful than an average speed for all subscribers, or what 80% might get, or what 50% might get. It is disappointing they appear not to have investigated the options properly.

Pure logic Kevin , but then you have emotion . Getting BT to “sort out its network ” brings me back to – who pays £50 Billion ?

Thanks for the info John but you do realise that even that large figure still isnt enough to cover Britain , although it is welcome.

That was my first thought when I heard it, and there are a lot open-ended unknowns in the statement.

The interesting question will be who decides who will get what and where. I presume there will be some sort of order of priority. And will this replace or overtake the commitment to get 95% of the UK up to 20 Mbps?

According to these Conversations there are still an enormous number of properties, not only in rural areas, that are not even on double figures Mbps. And there is the other difficult problem we discussed a few days ago of areas where the fibre capacity is being consumed by streaming etc faster than the network can be upgraded to meet demand. Perhaps there will have to be a requirement that households that require high capacity, even if only for a few hours a day, will have to pay for FTTP in order to protect other subscribers who are paying for a reasonable speed but not getting it. This will pay for additional trunk lines back to the exchange. I appreciate that an optical fibre cable can carry a very large number of digitised signals but even so there comes a point where constant compression reduces the capacity and speed.

I noticed recently a property where Openreach were installing FTTP from a street chamber. It involved quite a bit of new excavation and ductwork, digging up the driveway, and presumably a dedicated optical fibre cable either back to the exchange or to a district distribution hub or possibly the nearest cabinet if it was not already full. I can see how it would cost £5,000 for a single property. I suppose if neighbours got together and had it done at the same time there could be some savings but I don’t think people who are heavy users of broadband give much thought to how it reaches them.

Whenever I have seen inside a BT cabinet it always looks pretty full and I guess the capacity of each cabinet was decided having regard to the number of premises it would serve plus a bit in hand for expansion. In most cases that was in the days when it just carried telephone circuits but now they are being expected to service more lines and with much higher demands. I sometimes think it’s a miracle that the whole system doesn’t collapse altogether.

Very intelligently put John , rational, practical , realistic , your absolutely right a calculation is made on the number of customers requiring FTTC ,what usually happens is that once many in an area get it it encourages others to apply but by that time they have run out of access to the fibre cable and a new one has to be installed. FTTP is an intensive job as you either have to remove the copper cable from the cabinet to the home or as you have seen dig new ducting and install the new cable then go into the house and run it to the router ,the public dont realise how much work is required . Yes a community can get together and pay for it to be done at a reduced rate but it requires agreement with the local people. Some areas got it free when it was experimental but a lot of people have got unrealistic expectations egged on by those with hidden interest in causing adverse publicity for BT to try and get the government to react in their favour as Vodaphone tried earlier this year.

I go along with what you are saying, Malcolm, in principle and certainly in respect of high-speed broadband, but there are three important points to consider:

First, we have become used to a situation where virtually every property, residential or commercial, has had the benefit of a telecom service for decades and there is an expectation that broadband will be available as a supplementary service using the same infrastructure; we know that is unrealistic but that is how people think and it is what motivates politicians.

Second, government and business are virtually compelling people to use the internet for all kinds of transactions either directly through incentives or indirectly through a reduction in alternative channels. I had an e-mail at 9 pm last night from my district council urging me to sign up to receiving our Council Tax bill by e-mail, for which they are offering participation in a prize draw; I have paperless billing for nearly all the other utilities but wish to keep the Council Tax bill as a paper document not only because I occasionally need an original document as proof or residence, but also because it is usually accompanied by a host of other documents which are not properly designed for reading on screen and which are expensive to print off. I am not happy at being circulated in this way because I did not give the council my e-mail address for such purposes [if I get time they might be hearing from me!].

Finally, although a lot of people might have chosen to live in remote locations, many others have no choice owing to work or family needs and the absence of mains gas has been a feature of such places for generations but there are alternative fuels [including abundant logs in some areas]; there is virtually no economical alternative to an internet connection for business, for family and social life, for homework, and for shopping to give but a few examples. People in towns and cities could probably survive without broadband more viably than rural dwellers now, and every rural area now has quite a lot of businesses run from farms and homes that could not function without a website and reliable communication.

My preference would be to roll out broadband to all areas up to a sensible capacity and speed [? 20 Mbps] but find a way of getting the heavy users to make a better contribution to the network cost and the problems caused to other local users by high demand on the system.

John, I live in a rural area with copper broadband around 3 mbps. I do all I need on that and mrs r successfully watches iplayer via an Apple tv gadget. I recognise the increasing shift of some stuff online; my objection (too strong perhaps) is should high speed should be available to all when it seems unnecessary (assuming the cost of providing it is higher than “ordinary” broadband). If I can manage on my speed, why cannot others? I don’t see streaming entertainment as an important criterion. However, as I said earlier, if people who will benefit from higher speed broadband contribute to its cost, and don’t expect to be subsidised by my taxes, then OK.

Mains gas is a good way to significantly lower your heating bills, which is why I suggested it. But once again it is uneconomic to provide everywhere. Many (not all) choose where to live for our own reasons and should consider the pros and cons. There are alternatives to wired broadband that remoter communities can consider and fund, I believe.

I think we are both playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the same order, Malcolm.

I don’t know where high-speed starts in terms of Broadband, but I think the government’s original plan was to ensure that everyone had access to 20 Mbps and that makes a lot of sense to me. People needing faster speeds than that should contribute more [and they generally do through their tariff, I believe] but when there are several people in a property doing ordinary things simultaneously we do end up with capacity problems and the ‘contention ratio’ comes into play.

I do, however, take a broader view on the provision of a reliable and effective communications system across the whole country which I think, as a matter of public policy, should be provided without regard to the local or immediate financial contribution. Broadband services are two-way and interactive and there is no knowing who might need to become connected at any time so a basic infrastructure is a public necessity and should be seen as a utility, up to a point. That some households remain stuck in single figures, after all these years and all the promises that have been made, is wrong. Equally wrong is for people to claim that everyone has the right to draw any amount of capacity out of the network at any time. I also believe that, through irresponsible marketing, people have gained the impression that life as they know it will stop if they can’t get 180 Mbps and so are constantly pressing for higher speeds; in my limited experience, any low speed problems have more than likely been caused by inadequate server capacity at the other end of the communication link rather than basic local infrastructure deficiency [in other words, retailers and service providers have not uprated the capacity of their systems to match the traffic they have generated]. People assume that slow loading of pages and occasional buffering are due to their own poor connexion but that is not always the case.

Very good points, Kevin (fan of LOST, by any chance?). Your point about BT not maintaining the existing cabling is spot on; we live in a very isolated area, but over the years people have acquired these new-fangled telephone things and BT has simply added an extension cabinet which floods when we get heavy rain and in which the switches are significantly past their use-by dates.

In reply to Malcolm’s point regarding whether we all need very high speed BB, I suspect the point is that there are assumptions being made that we all have it, so manufacturers are increasingly building things with that assumption in mind. In purely survival terms it hasn’t achieved parity with fresh water, just yet, but I can see a point where that could change.

We get approx 8mbps, when the wind’s blowing from the right direction, and that’s barely enough for us. We have some twenty or so computer devices, including several Mac Pros, iMacs, Laptops, iPads, iPhones and several internet-dependent TV devices, a media server, and a gradually building pile of Homekit devices, which we operate from the iPads, etc. But all that is mostly convenience. However, we stay in touch with our children, which is important, and I suspect before long remote medical examinations will be taking place in homes using the internet.

We track each member of our family through GPS and internet tracking, so we know where they are (they’re all happy to opt in to that) I supply local weather information to Wunderground from a Met station, and I run some forums, all of which places demands on the speed and bandwidth.

The main point I’m making – albeit circuitously – is that we regard the ‘phone as something we need – not simply want. We regard sanitation as necessary, not as an optional extra. No doubt, when toilets were first suggested, Mr Crapper was told in no uncertain terms that they just weren’t necessary, and the street had sufficed for as long as anyone could remember. But things change, and it seems to me that very high speed BB is rapidly becoming as necessary.

I think your use of broadband is not typical Ian. As I said earlier we exist adequately on around 3 mbps including using iplayer. To load your home up with lots of hungry devices knowing your broadband cannot properly support them does not seem a good reason to expect taxpayers to pay to upgrade your service. As to “essential”, since many services are much more conveniently done on line, I fully support helping the vast majority of people to get access to a speed adequate to deal with the essentials, and to upgrade services to a reasonable level where it is economic. What I am not in favour of is spending vast sums of public money so people can stream entertainment, run their homes from mobile devices and suchlike – far from essentials, unlike fresh water. If people want this additional service they should be prepared to pay for it. I’d prefer my taxes being used to fund the NHS, potholes, benefits for the vulnerable, proper social care for those in need and other genuinely worthy causes. 🙂

Got to agree with malcolm here a realist approach , especially the last sentence .

We have six devices connected to the broadband service but we can each only be using one at a time. However, we each have our own telecom line and our own router and our own broadband tariff. I suppose we are daft.

Essentially, then, we agree, Malcolm. But if you want all this done for no cost to your taxes, then that has to be a matter for those who formulate government policy and determine incentives.

What I’m saying is that it’s not easy to determine what might become necessary as opposed to optional and, if the current copper infrastructure is ageing (which it is) poorly maintained (which it also is) and incapable of maintaining high BB speeds consistently and reliably (same again), then the money required to upgrade the system will almost certainly be roughly the same as it would cost to bring the current copper infrastructure up to par, so it makes sense to go the whole way and do it in one go.

I’d also take issue with your logic. When you say to load your home up with lots of hungry devices knowing your broadband cannot properly support them does not seem a good reason to expect taxpayers to pay to upgrade your service I’d make two points. Firstly, I don’t seem to recall saying anything about expecting the taxpayer to fund anything to do with my BB requirements. Please be kind enough to point me to where I’ve said that, or please retract the insinuation. Secondly, however, isn’t that argument akin to saying no one should get ill because the NHS can’t support everyone and it doesn’t seem a good reason to expect taxpayers to pay to upgrade the NHS?

You and I view the provision of services in a society from different perspectives. Comments you’ve made in other topics suggest that you view everything in terms of what it will cost you, as a tax payer. Cost is the single issue to which you return, time and time again. But if you develop that argument to its logical conclusion, we should immediately disband the armed forces, close the hospitals, schools and social services and eliminate all benefits. Because they’re all costing you, as a taxpayer, money and you might never use most of them. What use is an army to you? Or the Royal Navy? Look what they cost – billions. And the NHS. What about the parts of it you don’t use? Perhaps all paediatric and neonatal units should be closed down?

Now, clearly that’s an example of reductio ad absurdum but there’s more than a germ of truth in it. In a society we can’t choose only to support projects that appear to have direct benefits for us. In the examples I’ve quoted you might argue that you support the NHS, even if you don’t use it, but what I’m contending is that SFBB speeds are probably going to become as essential a part of society as the NHS is, and possibly more than the Army or Navy. We can’t know for sure, but what we do know is that whenever a technology has appeared the uses for that technology have always followed closely. The various technologies employed by the NHS are ample evidence of that.

It’s never wise to make the assumption that what you can manage on will always be enough for everyone and, in an age increasingly dependent on speeds of communication transmission, it’s more than likely that high speed BB will become an essential – not an optional – aspect of society.

Ian, you did make a point of how much equipment you had with the implication you were not getting the broadband service you needed to support it. If I have misunderstood I’m sorry. As I have said, if those who want much higher speeds than others because of the way they use broadband pay towards its cost, then OK.

Taxpayer’s money comes from those struggling on limited means as well as the wealthy. We have essential services that are not properly funded and that is where I want my taxes spent first, particularly in times of austerity.

I echo Malcolm’s second paragraph. It’s worth bearing in mind that no one gets relief from VAT and certain other levies and duties however much poverty or other hardship they are suffering.

Malcolm: no apology necessary, as the point I was making was that it’s impossible to separate the theoretical costs from the ultimate economic benefits. I’ll explain…

I would certainly agree that the current taxation system is far from equitable. But once again we’re returning to the entire question of national finances, and I for one certainly can’t fathom how it works, since debt at the national or macro-international levels doesn’t appear to mean what it does to us ordinary mortals.

I think it was Thatcher who coined the phrase ‘We cannot afford to pay ourselves more than we earn’ which, in national or international terms is a fairly meaningless platitude. We live in an international society built largely on concepts; and that’s the fatal weakness of the entire system.

An excellent (and possibly the best) example of this is Disneyland Paris. When it was first opened in 1992 it did so with more indebtedness than most medium-sized countries. Twenty-four years later and on paper it’s still losing close to £1bn per year. Now, any other private company losing that much would have shut down a long time ago, but DLP is actually too large to fail.

Thirty-eight banks were involved in the original financing and if DLP were to declare itself insolvent (which it actually is, in real terms) then several of those banks would crash. The knock-on effect of that could be disastrous to the world’s economy, so it soldiers on, raking in massive amounts of money, most of which is then paid out to the banks in interest repayments.

In other words, DLP financing is very similar to a small country’s: as long as it continues trading, the banks continue to advance it credit, despite knowing full well that it can’t ever repay the total debt or even make any serious inroads into it.

The other reason it can’t be allowed to fail goes directly to the nub of this debate. Since opening, what was once fairly low grade farmland in an uninspiring rural region of France has become an international and cultural hub, building expensive housing at a tremendous rate, opening hotels, holiday villages, the Val de Mer shopping district, becoming a focal point and main stop for the TGV, Eurostar and other High speed European railways and providing well-remunerated employment for more than 20,000 people. Simply put, France’s economy in that region now depends heavily on the income from DLP’s visitors.

We can debate about the need for High speed BB but none of us knows how essential it will be in years to come. DLP has created an economy in the middle of farmland and the same phenomenon (I believe) will be true of High speed BB in this country. The eventual contribution to the UK economy of ensuring everyone in the UK can get at least FTTC could be significant, in social and cultural terms alone .

People have been using cars as an analogy for broadband performance advertising relating it to fuel consumption or speed. The better illustration is highway congestion. As the traffic builds up the average speed declines; traffic jams occur on the optical fibre network just as they do on the roads. You can hope for a high speed service but if your use clashes with a peak demand period then it will not be available. I think it is time the advertising explained this point to customers. The broadband service providers should also stop charging people for something they cannot reliably deliver.

@ldeitz, thanks Lauren. I’ve been without broadband for a couple of days and just catching up so my replies may be out of order with others’ posts. I understand your point but mine was not to duplicate unnecessarily. Citizens Advice have, no doubt, a huge base of consumers to get information and complaints from; Which? also have a particular consumer base – 1 million subscribers and 40 000 Connect members to poll and seek information from. If both have the same objective – better speed information and clearer pricing – then i see little point in them doing it separately – unless they disagree on each others aims. A combined voice might be more effective than fragmented ones.

In just the same way, I want Which? to use the resources of other consumer organisations in Europe to spread the cost of testing so we get more information for less money – once again, why duplicate work that others do – it simply wastes scarce money.

Tuddo- check out – https://www.connectingdevonandsumerset.co.uk/ –input your postcode for up to date advice .

Hey you cant be a peasant haha. My download is average of 250 kb/s and upload about 130 kb/s. Wish I lived near you!

Any relation to Wat Tyler TAPI ? if you gather support you could advance on London like he did and demand justice. He did come to a sticky end though, listening to John Ball (cleric) has its disadvantages. You could start off by gathering others of a like mind under the– deprived serfs of the shires association, just dont use the Internet for recruitment or you will all be in the Tower before you know it.

“If you think that is bad.” “Your lucky”. (Monty Python.) Up ere in Cumbria, I have just paid to have an upgrade to 15mb. I get, for a few minutes 2.45mbs, normally around 1.5mbs download and normally 0.3mbs quite often 0mbs upload. The service is so poor BT’s online testing will not give a result.

Please elucidate John , what you mean is that my worst nightmare is going to take place . BT reduced to a shell , the last independent BRITISH company in this area . What have I warned about –US Hedge Companies owning it -off-shore companies US Big Banks , do you honestly believe Americans will run it better for the same price ? my prediction will come true -your fault broadband is slow ? -hundreds of $$$$ to call out engineer – British Telecom –THE END ! I have spent years on US websites watching what happens there and the vicious – profit first attitude , have you read years of US telecom complaints John -I have , watch prices go through the roof. Britain -no more . No wonder “our Nigel ” has got the nod+wink ” from The Donald to be US Ambassador to Britain. So ,tell me whom is going to cover Britain 100 % in FTTP ?? there are whole areas in the US with no phone /brioadband /cell-net , tell me its a joke ? please !

It’s not a joke Duncan. Openreach will own and operate the network and be responsible for extending fast fibre to as much of the UK as is practicable. BT will be a telecoms service provider, like several others. Openreach will be required to be even-handed to all service providers in rectifying faults and providing connexions. Subscribers will still have to contact their own service provider in the event of a fault or to upgrade their line.

I have not read anything about a change of ownership of BT and I don’t know how the break-up will be organised. Presumably the assets will be divided according to function and Openreach will be floated on the Stock Exchange for anyone to buy the shares.

I think Ofcom are responsible for ensuring that the FTTC roll-out takes place in accordance with government policy using the extra funds being made available.

Through its entry into broadcasting and mobile telephony BT will still be an enormous company; I suspect that Ofcom considered that its sheer size and peripheral activities were getting the better of it. It had been hoped that a voluntary separation would be agreed but BT was reluctant, Ofcom got impatient, and now a legal separation will be imposed, although there is still time for BT to reach a voluntary settlement with Ofcom.

And Openreach will be owned by —- Vodaphone which has massive US backers , big as they come look at the stocks+shares , so one more British company down the tubes , as I have been saying -UK ? – satrap of USA . BT too big ? yes in US BB eyes the very same people who have massive conglomerates running most of the western world . Never mind we always have the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace left thats a tourist industry. One more British utility will be US owned , prediction several years time a whole host of complaints about getting satisfaction from Openreach (UK) , branch of US BB.

Ofcom will separate a telephone service provider [BT] from a network utility company [O/r] and then let Vodafone take control? That wouldn’t make sense. There would be a conflict of interest and a further risk to competition.

Even the Americans arent stupid enough to sell off their telephone network . BT without its external infrastructure that you-me and all the British public paid for is not a telecommunications company in the real sense but just a switching station , he who controls the network is the real owner and it wont be the British public –SOLD -off your last pearl ! it does not take a genius to see what happened to all the other industries sold off after decades but this vital part of UK industry will end up in American hands , mark my words , it might be done subtly a bit at a time but in the end its ownership is heading “over the pond “.