BT clueless

In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to upgrade
the UK's telecomms network:

"The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry data
and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network
it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from the
government that it will be able to recoup its investment."

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>

Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.

Is the UK a third world country?

--
Pd

"Pd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1ib6een.pucuj8l6cxy5N%(E-Mail Removed) id...
> In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to upgrade
> the UK's telecomms network:
>
> "The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry data
> and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
> BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network
> it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from the
> government that it will be able to recoup its investment."
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>
>
> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
> of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
> demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.

Why should BT stump up the "£15bn" ?

> Is the UK a third world country?

Go back to flipping burgers

Gizmo. wrote:
> "Pd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1ib6een.pucuj8l6cxy5N%(E-Mail Removed) id...
>> In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to
>> upgrade the UK's telecomms network:
>>
>> "The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry
>> data and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
>> BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a
>> network it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from
>> the government that it will be able to recoup its investment."
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>
>>
>> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely
>> bereft of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course
>> there'll be demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat
>> etc etc.
>
> Why should BT stump up the "£15bn" ?

Or, in very rough terms, there are about 15 million households in the UK
with internet access. So that means everyone (broadband and dialup) with
internet access has to chip in £1000 for the "upgrade".
So, convince ALL the neighbours that the £1000+ bill added by their ISP is
reasonable ?
If not, make an estimate of how many might pay extra; perhaps 1/3rd ? So
that's now £3000 each....

BT isn't a charity, so won't do it without wanting to make a profit.


( I did a similar calculation during the 3G spectrum auction whilst working
at BT's R&D department and predicted it would end in tears. It did. ).



>> Is the UK a third world country?
>
> Go back to flipping burgers


Exactly.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

In message <1ib6een.pucuj8l6cxy5N%(E-Mail Removed) >, Pd
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to upgrade
>the UK's telecomms network:

>BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network
>it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from the
>government that it will be able to recoup its investment."

I see that all the LLU companies are rushing to instal fibre to your
home?




--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:47:33 +0000, Pd wrote:

> "BT has argued that
> with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network it needs to be
> convinced of demand and have assurances from the government that it will
> be able to recoup its investment."

> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
> of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
> demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.

By 'demand', BT mean people are willing to put their money where their
mouth is, rather than all the people who say they want 1G fibre internet
connections at home. Desire, no matter how strong, doesn't pay for
something.

> Is the UK a third world country?

Presumably that is a rhetorical question, but I would hazard a guess that
a far larger proportion of people in the UK can get broadband at a
sensible price than in any third world country.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
18:32:46 up 18 days, 8:58, 2 users, load average: 1.25, 1.15, 1.09
2x Broadband/IT/Telecoms support positions in Newcastle city centre.
For more info call 0191 229 8870 and ask for Steve. No agencies.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:47:33 +0000, (E-Mail Removed)lid (Pd)
wrote:

>In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to upgrade
>the UK's telecomms network:
>
>"The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry data
>and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
>BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network
>it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from the
>government that it will be able to recoup its investment."
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>
>
>Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
>of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
>demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.
>
>Is the UK a third world country?

No, but as soon as BT pay for the new infrastructure, all competing
OLO's will be allowed to use it. Unlike the existing cable network
paid for by NTL / Telewest / and other USA cable companies who can use
their own fibre exclusively and not allow any third party access.

jasper

> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
> of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
> demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.

There is not reason why people would want HD films. At the moment HD
is only in a starting stage yet, people may like the sound of extra
bandwidth but they like the sound of cheap even more so BT would be
wasting tier money by upgrading their network if people would not pay
for the faster services that would cover their investment. Many of the
companies that built the current copper phone network are not around
now, not because they have been brought up but they have gone bust. BT
has got the right Idea by asking the government for their support.
I mean someone who runs a internet cafe would not upgrade their PC's
even though their customers say so, unless the customers would be
prepared to pay extra to cover the cost of the PC's relatively
quickly?

"Pd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1ib6een.pucuj8l6cxy5N%(E-Mail Removed) id...
> In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to upgrade
> the UK's telecomms network:
>
> "The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry data
> and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
> BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a network
> it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from the
> government that it will be able to recoup its investment."
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>
>
> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely bereft
> of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course there'll be
> demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat etc etc.
>
> Is the UK a third world country?
>
> --
> Pd

Yes

Robert Peffers wrote:

> "Pd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >
> > Is the UK a third world country?
>
>
> Yes

No. Not YET. Give it time. The politicians certainly want it to happen
(judging by their actions). Realistically we have yet to reach true *second*
world status but we're accelerating in that direction.

Graham

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Gizmo. wrote:
>> "Pd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:1ib6een.pucuj8l6cxy5N%(E-Mail Removed) id...
>>> In an article on the BBC today, BT are apparently reluctant to
>>> upgrade the UK's telecomms network:
>>>
>>> "The current telecommunications system was never designed to carry
>>> data and many have called for an urgent fibre upgrade.
>>> BT has argued that with costs of up to £15bn to roll out such a
>>> network it needs to be convinced of demand and have assurances from
>>> the government that it will be able to recoup its investment."
>>>
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7202396.stm>
>>>
>>> Needs to be convinced of demand? Are they really that completely
>>> bereft of anything like an understanding of the internet? Of course
>>> there'll be demand, for HD films and TV, decent quality video chat
>>> etc etc.
>> Why should BT stump up the "£15bn" ?
>
> Or, in very rough terms, there are about 15 million households in the UK
> with internet access. So that means everyone (broadband and dialup) with
> internet access has to chip in £1000 for the "upgrade".
> So, convince ALL the neighbours that the £1000+ bill added by their ISP is
> reasonable ?
> If not, make an estimate of how many might pay extra; perhaps 1/3rd ? So
> that's now £3000 each....

But does it work like that, though? Since the fibre network will be a BT
asset wouldn't they be able to cook the books to spin the cost out over
three years. Plus they're unlikely to upgrade the whole country in one
go, so it could be nine years before the final cost hits them.

--
Abo