http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7182753/Couple-told-by-BT-that-broadband-upgrade-would-cost-45000.html


Quote:

Couple told by BT that broadband upgrade would cost £45,000 They have managed with an old “dial up” service for the last nine years at the Victorian guest house they own. But when they looked into getting broadband installed they were hit by the huge quote because BT said for the Walkers to benefit it would need to install new equipment that would also serve others in the village. Mr Walker, 60, said: “It’s a farce, and obviously we’re staggered. We don’t have £45,000 and if we did we wouldn’t spend it on this.” Currently BT broadband access is available to residents of the 150-strong village of Dufton, near Appelby, Cumbria, but BT said there was no capacity for any new users. …

More stories:

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/cumbrian_guesthouse_couple_quoted_45_000_for_broadband_upgrade_1_672062?referrerPath=home
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/4909071.Dufton_couple_s_anger_at___45_000_BT_quote_to_install_broadband/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cumbria/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8505000/8505745.stm (BBC Look North report)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249324/BT-tells-couple-installing-broadband-cost-45-000.html

---

It can't be right that such a high price tag should be put on a broadband service. Mr and Mrs Walker's exchange has the 150 broadband lines connected to it that the equipment there will allow, so no one else in the area can have broadband.

In the mean time, they are stuck with a 24Kbps dial-up connection.

Perhaps they should consider moving a few miles north. Just over the border the Scottish Govt has recognised the importance of broadband in rural areas:
http://www.publictechnology.net/content/22103.

Surely there should be a similar scheme down 'Sarf? :-/

Source: BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10164893.stm


Quote:

BT quotes pensioner over £150,000 to install broadband A pensioner says BT has quoted her more than £150,000 to install broadband to her rural home. Beverley McCartney, of Salem, near Llandeilo, Carmarthenshire, has wanted a broadband connection for years. BT had previously told her it was not able to connect broadband, but sent a letter last week saying it could. The company said in very rare cases exceptional charges are needed. It will contribute £8,000 to the costs but only if £129,613.54 plus VAT is paid. Mrs McCartney said: "I just laughed, I thought it was ludicrous in view of their profits. …

No mention is made of the quotations for service by other communications providers such as Virgin Media.

I fail to see what BT's profits has to do with this. BT is now no longer a public utility whose objective is to provide telecommunications services to the public, but is there to generate a profit for its shareholders.

I think £8,000 is a generous subsidy.

Why do people who choose to live in the rural idyll expect utilities to give them outrageous subsidies for their connection?

I agree with the previous posts, however when statements like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/28/digital-britain-broadband are released (I know it was last year) everyone thinks they will get broadband as a matter of right.

We wait to see what approach the new government will take to the issue.

The previous government was keen to intervene to ensure "Broadband for all".

As social, commercial and civic society moves over to the internet, I find it increasingly hard to oppose the idea that we should take action to ensure that all have access.

Dave wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 1:33am:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7182753/Couple-told-by-BT-that-broadband-upgrade-would-cost-45000.html Quote: Couple told by BT that broadband upgrade would cost £45,000 They have managed with an old “dial up” service for the last nine years at the Victorian guest house they own. But when they looked into getting broadband installed they were hit by the huge quote because BT said for the Walkers to benefit it would need to install new equipment that would also serve others in the village. Mr Walker, 60, said: “It’s a farce, and obviously we’re staggered. We don’t have £45,000 and if we did we wouldn’t spend it on this.” Currently BT broadband access is available to residents of the 150-strong village of Dufton, near Appelby, Cumbria, but BT said there was no capacity for any new users. … More stories: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/cumbrian_guesthouse_couple_quoted_45_000_for_broadband_upgrade_1_672062?referrerPath=home http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/4909071.Dufton_couple_s_anger_at___45_000_BT_quote_to_install_broadband/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cumbria/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8505000/8505745.stm (BBC Look North report) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249324/BT-tells-couple-installing-broadband-cost-45-000.html It can't be right that such a high price tag should be put on a broadband service. Mr and Mrs Walker's exchange has the 150 broadband lines connected to it that the equipment there will allow, so no one else in the area can have broadband. In the mean time, they are stuck with a 24Kbps dial-up connection.

I think this is ridiculous for them to pass on charges like this. Communication providers should pay to maintain their network themselves. I almost couldn't believe that this was BT's quote.

Kiko4564 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 8:42pm:

I think this is ridiculous for them to pass on charges like this. Communication providers should pay to maintain their network themselves. I almost couldn't believe that this was BT's quote.

In the days of telecommunications being a public utility, then the network operator would probably be there to provide a service in any location and that would be its primary objective.

As communications providers are now private entities, whose objective is to make profit, then I cannot see them doing something like this without passing on their costs. This is because they would not be able to recoup that outlay any time soon from the subscriber(s) that will use the infrastructure in question.

Dave wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Kiko4564 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:42pm: I think this is ridiculous for them to pass on charges like this. Communication providers should pay to maintain their network themselves. I almost couldn't believe that this was BT's quote. As communications providers are now private entities, whose objective is to make profit, then I cannot see them doing something like this without passing on their costs. This is because they would not be able to recoup that outlay any time soon from the subscriber(s) that will use the infrastructure in question.

This issue raises some fascinating questions.

If Communications providers should pay to maintain their network, then how many of them should be required by law to install a nationwide fast broadband network? What then happens when all of their existing customers refuse to pay the inflated bills and run off to cheaper providers who do not have to carry this cost?

The landline tax has been abolished by the new government which is talking about using money from the TV licence left over from the digital switchover to subsidise broadband provision in uneconomic areas. The sums do not however add up and it is hard to guess what is going to happen.

I am going to hazard two guesses.

1. Those in remote marginal constituencies can look forward to getting subsidised fast broadband in time for the next general election.

2. Local agencies will be encouraged to invest in a fibre-optic link to the network so that they can sell on connections to local people. These could be social enterprises, to start with, but they will end up getting taken over.

Stoday wrote on Jun 14^th, 2010 at 12:39am:

I think £8,000 is a generous subsidy. Why do people who choose to live in the rural idyll expect utilities to give them outrageous subsidies for their connection?

THIS, I totally agree with! and I will use this quote elsewhere also!

nutellajunkie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 2:12pm:

THIS, I totally agree with! and I will use this quote elsewhere also!

So why should I subsidise your expensive subsidised urban bus services and urban tube lines that I do not myself use.

If we all thought like you then a national postal network with a standard letter price would never have been set up.

I personally believe BT should be forced to upgrade the exchange to handle more broadband connections as it cannot be fair that some people on the exchange can have broadband and others cannot purely down to an arbitrary level of capacity that was clearly inadequately anticipated at the outset when the exchange was broadband enabled (I assume this will be an Exchange Activate exchange where the backbone network is still supplied by copper and not fibre optic cabling).

BT makes so much profit out of the 4,000 telephone exchanges where it has no LLU competition (even if not much profit out of the very smallest of these 4,000 exchanges) that it can easily afford to do this if it is made a regulatory requirement to offer broadband equally to all and not just to those who applied for it first on an exchange.