TalkTalk to splash £1.5bn laying full fibre on 3 million doorsteps TalkTalk plans to bring full fibre speeds of 1Gbps to three million premises in the UK, by creating an independent company with a total investment of around £1.5bn. Under the plans, the entity would be 20 per cent owned by TalkTalk and 80 per cent by infrastructure investor Infracapital. The ISP is also raising £200m in new …
Only a monopoly if you consider FTTP a unique product that can't be replicated.
I'm sure the competition authorities would consider the market definition to be broadband Internet access, of which a customer would have the choice of this FTTP from talktalk, four different mobile networks, fixed line access using BT's network, satellite broadband and maybe Virgin.
Ford don't have a monopoly based on being the only company that sells Fiestas.
'Only a monopoly if you consider FTTP a unique product that can't be replicated.
My point was if there was only one fibre network, which some are proposing, it would be a monopoly which tends to be bad for the consumer no matter who owns it. Obviously you could use mobile or copper instead but then you'd be stuck with an old technology or one that has its own limits on bandwidth as more people use it. So in that sense FTTP is a unique product.
They can have multiple networks and then have the BGP routing to manage connections across the telecom provider equipment.
As long as there is no QoS or non-neutrality on the traffic it should be OK. However if your BT fibre traffic is then going over a Virgin Media or Talk Talk and someone at Talk Talk decides to slow down Netflix traffic for non-Talk Talk users then there would be a call for a national fibre network.
Openreach should really be classed as National Infrastructure - under the security control of CPNI and treated as such.
Broadband should really be classified as a utility, the same as Gas, Electric and Water.
I never noticed any work going on in the street but I've apparently had fibre broadband for years.
You've also got "up to" speeds for the theoretical maximum download speed with no contention ratio and the modem plugged directly into the exchange kit with 10cm of cable operating in a shielded, clean room.
The "fibre broadband" business is where you don't have it, but the cabinet down the end of your road will. Or maybe the next one. Well, one of them somewhere anywhere will probably have fibre somewhere. Marketing...
Well a national single network seems to be what Australia is trying to do. From reading the stories in ElReg it looks like it's not going as planned ...
But yes, if done correctly it would make sense. We could have a company who had lots of ducts, poles, cables, etc and in a position to sell capacity on that to all the ISPs. Win-win, one set of infrastructure - lower costs, better services. After all, we have one set of roads, one set of electricity cables, one set of water pipes, one set of drains, one set of gas pipes ...
The services would be open, and they'd reach (nearly) everyone - so perhaps call them OpenReach. Just as long as they are independent and not doing what suits a single player with a vested interest in tilting the market in their own favour. Ah, I see the problem now :-(
"Just as long as they are independent and not doing what suits a single player with a vested interest in tilting the market in their own favour. Ah, I see the problem now :-("
That would probably appear to happen in pretty much every imaginable model. BT is Openreach's largest customer, by far. Suppliers that do well generally respond to the needs of their biggest customers. If Openreach was sold to TalkTalk, BT would still be its biggest customer and its prices would still be set by Ofcom. TalkTalk-owned Openreach would earn more money from BT than from its own retail customers.
All these FTTP announcements are addressing urban areas where the ROI is better. We are rebuilding the "problem" that BDUK was intended to resolve - in the city you get fibre, in the country you get less, much less. Services will expand to use available bandwidth making statements like "I'm fine with 20Mbps" short sighted. Getting your HD video stream squeezed in-between full HDR 4K video will get less and less reliable .... your 20 Mbps today won't perform so well tomorrow due to noisier high bandwidth neighbours. On the public internet there ain't no QoS.
The gubbermint needs to skip the inevitable decade of realisation and go full fibre everywhere NOW. Everywhere. NOW. Do it. Please. Being 3rd last in the EU table for FTTH is resolvable.
That is all.
In all seriousness, rolling out fibre across the countryside will cost buckets of cash. I don't want that cost added onto my urban connection.... unless, of course, the person who lives in the sticks and bought a 3000 square foot barn for the cost of my urban semi would like to subsidise my move to the detached place down the street?
That person in the middle of nowhere could be a farmer. Farms and farmers could benefit a lot from good IT infrastructure and a fast, robust internet connection. Not just stuff like which market is paying the best prices for lambs today or reading about the developments in farm machinery but using drones to remotely inspect crops. Sensors to determine how moist the soil is. Videos of how to maintain their equipment, best pratice for fertiliser use etc etc. Productictivity boost in farming would benefit the whole country.
Emergancy service gear is increasingly connected too.
Without a good internet connection you're less likely to see new businesses setting up there or the ones that are there growing so you get an upward spiral in high density areas getting more dense and lower density areas getting less dense.
"Farms and farmers could benefit a lot from good IT infrastructure and a fast, robust internet connection. "
And they have them today. Farms that need serious infrastructure buy business grade leased-line Internet access, which can be delivered to pretty much anywhere in the UK. Businesses can afford the cost of gigabit or higher uncontended fibre services.
"Emergancy service gear is increasingly connected too."
Safety critical infrastructure does not get connected to consumer broadband networks that are built to be affordable, not reliable. Emergency service and other critical networks are built to five nines availability and they already exist.
Businesses can afford the cost of gigabit or higher uncontended fibre services.
You would have thought that, however, it is surprising how many small and SoHo business owners comment here on the quality of residential broadband and get upset when told to use leased line services...
As for farmers, many just need sufficient and reliable bandwidth to access government/EU websites a few times a week, making leased lines an expensive overkill...
"In all seriousness, rolling out fibre across the countryside will cost buckets of cash. "
Fine... if you're happy to pay your own way - get your wallet out and pay us taxpayers back for everything we have paid for that you have used over the years...
unless, of course, the person who lives in the sticks and bought a 3000 square foot barn for the cost of my urban semi would like to subsidise my move to the detached place down the street?
They are already subsidising your lifestyle!
If it weren't for the people moving out of the cities, you wouldn't be able to afford your current home or move down the street. As whilst you might like the idea of having a queue of potential buyers for your property, I doubt you will like the idea of queuing yourself to join a bidding war to pay over the odd's for your new property down the street...
Being 3rd last in the EU table for FTTH is resolvable.
Being third last in the EU table for FTTH is irrelevant, that's the wrong way of looking at it. All that counts is the speed and quality of the connection, and the availability at an affordable cost. In that respect, the cable network already provides equivalent speeds to those commercially likely from FTTH, so around 55% of the UK already have the possibility of connecting to a very high speed connection, but only what, around 1 in 5 homes passed by cable choose to connect (and most choosing speeds well below the 300 Mbps feasible). If the table also included homes that could at low cost connect to cable (or other local fibre networks) it would be more accurate - but that would show a different picture.
Now, if over half the population have the chance, but only only 20% of those people being offered >80 Mbps connections actually want them, where's your case for an immediate national roll out of FTTH?
Is ROI really better in urban settings ? Maybe in small towns where installation is cheap and there are lots of customers.
But in larger towns, installation is expensive : it's so disruptive. Which is why many areas in central london still have dreadful broadband. Sticking an (albeit longer) cable in a grass verge is a doddle by comparison.
I predict that Talkalk as a company is so ill managed, that it will be taken over within 2 years, even before a street is dug up. (next year is when?). THey lie a lot.
They just like to grab headlines, and Dunstone is an establishment man, so the press will support his hype.
I predict that Talkalk as a company is so ill managed, that it will be taken over within 2 years
By who? Even when new, the customer contracts are too short to give long term value certainty, the company has few owned assets, much of its operations are outsourced, and overall margins are modest. Also, when you make your business a "cheapest in the market, no standards at all" proposition, you don't look attractive to buyers because the customer base is very price conscious, and know how to switch. Look at energy company npower - absolutely incompetent, and have been for many years. They tried to sell the business for at least four years with no takers, and now there's a last chance effort to merge it with SSE, which is tantamount to admitting failure and giving it away. If that is blocked by the regulator, lord knows what npower will do, since they've got no money and no idea,
The really valuable customers in these markets are those who have few good switching options (eg people on fast cable connections), or those who never switch at all. In both cases, that's where the money is made, a position true in telephony, energy, insurance, boiler cover and so forth.
I think Sky is the logical suitor for Talktalk business. They are into IPTV (via youview) but Sky have the original programmings and access to a lot of content, which TT doesnt. They are also launching the new NOw tv stick to further enhance their TV presence. A lot of synergy to achieve.
Besides, TT results dont make good readings lately and share prices have tanked. The cost of servicing the 3 million fibre connections will sink the company and stretch the already pathetic management and customer services. I even doubt this wil be lauched in due time. They have not yet even identified the towns/cities that wil get this Ftth. Its just wiilly waving to grab headlines when the financials are heading south.
FFS, they could not even offer 4G on mobiles for 3 years, after grand announcements. And the divison closed.
Mr Dunstone is a sharpy chap and he is seeing the light. Might just cash up.
And wouldn't go back to them if you paid me a large sum.
It's not just the sieve that is their data protection (I doubt many other businesses are any better, they just got caught out), but also their appalling service provision - ADSL that slows to a crawl and drops out on a semi-regular basis, and their equally appalling customer service. Putting aside the Indian call centre (I've nothing against people from India, but it would be nice to be able to hear the person on the other end of the crappy VOIP line, and understand their accent), they once billed me £50 for an engineer call out for a fault on the line.
The first engineer didn't turn up, and the one on the rebooked appointment came round, pulled out the neatly spliced CAT6e phone extension from the master socket, and moved all the furniture away from the wall, before actually bothering to test whether the fault was inside the premises (it wasn't). If I hadn't checked the bill, I wouldn't have noticed the charge, and if I hadn't spent 20 minutes arguing with the call centre operative, they wouldn't have reimbursed me.
So, Talk Talk, I'm sorry, but you have joined the list of ISPs to be avoided, along with BT.
So, Talk Talk, I'm sorry, but you have joined the list of ISPs to be avoided, along with BT.
Verminmedia are no better, from my own experience. Looking at sources like this:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php shows what looks like a strong inverse relationship between the size of a company and customer satisfaction. Unfortunately it also means that getting better service means paying the higher prices of smaller, better run companies. A clear case that you get what you pay for. Nothing to choose between Virginmedia, Sky, BT, Plusnet.
In real long term pricing, the advantage of the big companies is wafer thin (most of their economies of scale are swallowed up by huge marketing budgets and their own operational incompetence), but they disguise this by having bigger up front promotional offers that dupe many people into going with them, followed by big price rises at the end of the contract period.
TalkTalk crapiness aside, will people actually be able to take advantage of this?
I have 200Mb/sec cable (and yes, I actually get 200Mb/sec!). But last year, I looked into ADSL options to save money. The various ISP's claimed to offer speeds of up to 500Mb, but when I contacted them for details, they all told me that I'd have to place their router in my electrical cabinet at the entrance to my apartment, which is at the opposite end of my apartment to my living room where all my connected devices are located (PC, consoles, TV, HTPC, etc.).
When I asked how I was supposed to connect my devices, they just mumbled something about "wifi". So I'm being offered a 500Mb connection that will either be bottlenecked by horrible wifi, or I need to mess up my hallway by running ethernet cables from one end of my apartment to the other. They were absolutely no help in offering any options to actually get my devices connected to the service (isn't that the point of the service they're supposed to be offering!?).
So naturally I decided to stick with my slightly more expensive cable Internet, where my router is in the living room right next to my PC.
This is one area that VM shine (at least in my local area).
They ask you which room you want the TV in and which room you want the router in and then run the cables as required.
They don't charge for engineering visits in general, either. When our builders hit the cable whilst doing a bit of block paving they just came out and fixed it.
The possibly lower up front cost of copper/fibre services may be attractive but it seems that the VM subscription includes free engineering support.
The possibly lower up front cost of copper/fibre services may be attractive but it seems that the VM subscription includes free engineering support.
You were lucky. If you want something as trivial as the internal connection point moving, or even just a longer cable to reposition the hub, the thieves have a standard charge or £99. I would guess the only reason you didn't get stuffed with that was the billing incompetence of VM. And actual customer technical support for VM customers is appalling. Useless, crapbag offshore call centres staffed by script reading monkeys who can't problem solve, can't deal with anything not on the script, speak poor English.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
