Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2006 at 6:42pm:


Dave are you unaware that BT will be offering its 8MB ADSL Max product on all its ADSL enabled exchanges (apart from the Exchange Activate exchanges that only have a copper wire instead of fibre optic backhaul and are limited to 512k line speeds) within the next 1 to 2 months.  So then the key advantage non BT providers would have would be to offer a lower cost broadband connection while also eliminating the cost of BT line rental.  In fact my little country exchange that was not ADSL enabled until June 2004 is going to be ADSL Max enabled early as part of a test group on March 3rd - see www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=THCP

Of course some of the LLU exchanges will then move on to offering up to 24MB ADSL2+ but then BT will again be rolling that technology out to all its exchanges a few months later. Although I'm unclear whether ADSL2+ actually requires any new exchange hardware investment by BT.  However ADSL Max at 8MB (compared to the original 2MB) certainly did not and only requires BT's main backhaul network to have been substantially beefed up to cope with the extra traffic.

Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2006 at 2:45pm:


No the element of the copper wire devoted to carrying voice traffic is trivial and makes no difference.  The point of doing away with the PSTN phone service is to make all calls via Voip and to do away with as much as possible of BT's extortionate £33 a quarter line rental charge.  Unfortunately the complacent overpaid saps at Ofcom are getting ready to accept BT's preposterous argument that their 20 year old copper wire and 1980s linecard actually costs them nearly £30 per quarter to maintain even though my electricity and my water companies only charge £5.50 per quarter standing chage each!

There is quite a lot more to read on Naked DSL in Ofcom's new consulation on Voip services.  Predictably it says there is no need for Ofcom to force BT to offer Naked DSL even on non LLU country exchanges.  Now I wonder after which top of the range lunch at a smart restaurant Ofcom senior staff were persuaded of that particular argument.

There is a lot more on Naked DSL starting on P70 of Ofcom's recently launched consultation on the Regulation of Voip Services and elsewhere in this document.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipregulation.pdf#xml=http://se...

Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2006 at 7:34pm:


Dave,

I don't think you can have read my comments or understand the main point of broadband providers having LLU equipment in exchanges.  The main point of this is not so much to be faster than BT as to be able to provide broadband a lot cheaper by having LLU equipment on fairly large BT exchanges.  By doing this you can then cut out BT Wholesale's charges for backhaul and get connected to the rest of the internet at the cheapest possible price.

And I strongly suspect that it will only be at LLU exchanges that naked DSL will be offered at prices much less than BT line rental because the underlying provider of the DSLAM etc will not be BT Wholesale so BT Wholesale's extortionately high per customer charges will not have to be paid.  But it seems that Ofcom thinks that for those of us on country exchanges with BT only equipment it will allow BT to force us to take its lousy overpriced PSTN phone service we don't need so as to prop up BT's whole inefficient creaky and vastly overstaffed ex nationalised industry structure.

I can't believe that Messrs Stepen Carter and David Currie are allowed to remain in charge of Ofcom when at every turn they insist on constructing a regime designed to ramp up the profits and protect the business interests of the largest telecoms players whilst ensuring the least possible competition and highest possible prices for consumers.  It really does seem to be the case that if New Labour scratches the back of the large telecoms and broadcasting companies then they will agree to only print and say nice things about the present New Labour administration no matter how hugely lost or out of control it may in fact continue to become.

Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2006 at 8:03pm:

Actually the LLU provider has every possible incentive to charge a much lower fee for line maintenance for a Naked DSL connection so as to encourage BT's customers (to whom BT with its standard national product range will probably not be offering a naked DSL option) to switch to using it as their broadband provider.  Unfortunately there will still be a fee to maintain the copper wire for broadband (but a lower fee than the one charges for PSTN voice) because of the fiction that BT continue to perpetrate that they spend nearly £30 a quarter on maintaining the old thin copper wires they feed to customers from their telephone exchanges.

It is a massive indictment of Ofcom's spineless weakness as a regulator that never puts telecoms customers first that it simply accepts the creative accounting methods used by BT to claim that uniquely its network of old copper wires and electronic switches is so very expensive to maintain.  Of course if BT had faced much more in the way of competition over the years it would have had far more incentive to become efficient about the costs it incurs in maintaining its customer phone lines.

Tanllan wrote on Feb 28^th, 2006 at 9:33pm:


Tanllan,

I wonder if you are not being a little hard on BT when their phone line at this address has never once been out of action in the 9 years I have lived here, whereas my gas boiler very nearly blew up due to Transco's known (by them but not by me or our landlord) range of substandard defective regulators with only 25% of usual lifespan not being proactively replaced prior to the sudden unexpected failure - which I consequently suffered.  Also compared to E D & F Energy and their third world overhead power wires that used to mean frequent brief power trip outs every few days when I first lived here and with whom power was unexpectedly off for nearly two hours a few months ago.  East Sutton and Surrey Water are I will grant you fantastic chappies where there have never been any unexpected outages and where their meters are in a location where they can always be reliably read.

So while I am usually one of the most cynical people around when it comes to the motives of big business I do see some evidence that BT carries out proactive maintenance to avoid component failures before they happen.  However what I do not see any evidence of is them spending anything like the £250,000 per annum plus that the line rental on their 1900 lines on the Capel telephone exchange must generate.  And that's before we allow for the £60,000 per annum that BT Wholesale probably now picks up on ADSL rental of the same lines and any further amount that BT Retail may earn on top for those ADSL lines sold within BT branded broadband packages.  And that's also without mentioning the £100,000 or so that BT probably pocket from users on this exchange from their element of 084/7 calls.

So I believe BT do carry out some equipment maintenance and replacement but I can't believe that maintenance is worth more than about £6 per quarter or £24 per annum.

Oooh my exchange is SDSL enabled.

ADSL MAX 31 Mar 2006  (Tentative).
Still cant see why its so long away, I know theres fiber around cos I saw BT digging it up outside my house. Shame I couldnt attach 2 meteres worth of fiber from that backbone to my house.

Just noticed that we got ADSL in 30 Sep 2001, This must have been in the real real begining.

mc661 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 12:38am:


Dorking exchange was enabled on 31st March 2000 but we in the straw chewing villages of Surrey 7 miles south of Dorking had to wait 4 years and 2 months longer for ADSL to be provided on our exchange.

BT begrudged having to lay a fibre optic cable the 7 miles to our 1900 line exchange even though in the end they still had to pay for this themselves anyway.

cowman wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 9:33am:


Here is the list of LLU exchanges including the LLU provider:-

www.samknows.com/broadband/llu-league.php