back to article Openreach boss says he'd take a burning effigy on the chin

"Look, if you can't get decent broadband, it is a real pisser," said Openreach boss Clive Selley in response to a Devon village's decision to burn an effigy of one of its vans on bonfire night. The place in question, Templeton, struggles to get 1Mbps. But Selley reckons that is why BT's controversial voluntary offer to connect …

  1. 45RPM Silver badge

    The only thing that BT understands is competition. Until they have solid competition then Templeton, and communities like it, will get little to no love from Buzby and Co. We were in a similar situation. Risible broadband performance, with frequent timeout disconnects, until a competitor came to our sleepy village with promises of a minimum of 100Mbps synchronous broadband. Many of us signed up - and guess what happened? BT suddenly discovered that they could provide half decent performance to our area after all! 100Mbps to our village from BT, who’dathoughtit?

    I say half decent because its only asynchronous - a distinction that won’t matter a jot to most people. Perhaps I should have said quarter decent though because, as far as I’m concerned, they’ve burned their bridges.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I live in Canada and here there were/are only two (significant) providers in my area. For years, one provided phone over twisted copper and the other cable TV over coax. The cable TV provider got into providing Internet and phone services and then the twisted copper phone provider did as well. As you can imagine the coax provided much better results as Internet speeds gradually increased. The twisted copper provider, finally, decided to roll out FTTP and is now the predominant Internet, TV and phone provider. Prices have risen but the service is excellent.

      It is my understanding that BT as received money from Gov several times for Fiber roll out. What has it done with that? England is, geographically, much smaller and has a much larger population. With the population density there is no good reason England doesn't have FTTP. The populace should be looking for changers to be laid.

      1. AndrueC Silver badge

        It is my understanding that BT as received money from Gov several times for Fiber roll out. What has it done with that?

        Quite a lot. Unfortunately most of the land is owned and used by someone. You can't just grab a backhoe and dig a trench from A to be then drop a cable into it. You have to agree wayleaves. And digging roads and laying cables in cities and towns is no cakewalk when you have over a hundred years of infrastructure to deal with.

        BT has additional issues:

        * It is forced by law to allow other operators to use it's cables and network. So after going to all the expense of laying fibre BT isn't even guaranteed the full RoI - it has to share that.

        * People quite rightly don't like the idea of the government giving money to a private company. That imposes limits on how much money can be given.

        * BT's voice network is one of the most advanced and reliable in the world. This makes the accounting case for upgrading to carry data a bit weaker.

        Lastly you might want to consider the chart here.

        UK: #13. 92%

        Canada: #17: 88.47%

        There's also not much difference in average speed. Depending who you ask we both seem to sit around 13Mb/s. Maybe it's you who should be complaining ;)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ AndrueC

          This one has Canada at 16th and the United Kingdom at 26th. Either way the United Kingdom's broadband speeds are better than I would have expected without a major fiber roll out.

          http://www.speedtest.net/global-index

    2. AndrueC Silver badge
      Meh

      The only thing that BT understands is competition. Until they have solid competition then Templeton, and communities like it, will get little to no love from Buzby and Co

      That only works if communities like Templeton are worth fighting over commercially. Unfortunately they are not.

      Network roll-out has always been driven by value. That's why cities get upgrades before towns and towns before villages. And it's not just BT. VM thinks the same way. The LLUOs think the same way.

      If you live in a city or 'wealthy' town you will have a choice of LLUOs and probably VM cable. There's your competition.

      The sad fact is that places like Templeton are bloody expensive to upgrade and the RoI on doing that is either negative or measured in decades. No-one is going to compete to get a slice of that pie.

    3. Dave Harvey
      Headmaster

      Synchronous vs. Symmetric

      All broadband connections are essentially synchronous - I presume that you are referring to the symmetry of the connection - i.e. whether upstream and downstream connections are the same speed.

      BT are still very wedded to asymmetry - even my spanking new FTTP connection (when they've repaired the main cables - 3 weeks and counting) will be 330Mbps down with "only" 30 Mbps up. I presume that they're scared of eating their own "business" leased line market.

      1. Tom 38

        Re: Synchronous vs. Symmetric

        my spanking new FTTP connection (when they've repaired the main cables - 3 weeks and counting) will be 330Mbps down with "only" 30 Mbps up.

        This pissed me off so much when I got my new flat. I have an openreach box inside my comms riser that has been permanently lit with the exchange at a lovely synchronous 1.2Gbps. What will BT sell me? 330/30! The box splits the connection in to 4, so I can have a separate BT subscription for each bedroom, the living room and the kitchen..

        Unsurprisingly, I went with the other FTTP provider in my flat, which offers synchronous gigabit for £10 less than BT wanted.

        PS: Yes, I know how lucky I am, but it highlights the problems. I have this connection choice in London, but 1 hr drive to my parents, and you're back to 2Mb intermittently working DSL

        PPS: It's not "luck". Why do you think I got this place and not another?

  2. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

    FTTP...

    Will that be more FTTP on demand? I'm in an area marked "FTTP on demand" active.

    Can I find a decent ISP who will provide? Nope. "We don't office on demard" ("there's no demand")

    Have to go to BT Broadband for it, and have it from them.

    Once it's installed and the contract expires, then I can switch to someone else.

    1. Hubert Thrunge Jr.

      Re: FTTP...

      I got a quote for FTTP On Demand up here in Rural Englandshire.

      I'm 1.1Km from my nearest street cabinet.

      £5750 for "installation" then it's £165/month + VAT for 330Mb down, 30Mb up, PLUS £60/month surcharge because we're in a Annex A area, ie: less than 3 LLU providers! We have to pay a surcharge because there is "noncompetition" WTF?

  3. Martin Summers Silver badge

    I still feel there's a massive lack of getting out and doing anything at all. With the attitude they have towards this now it's amazing that many remote villages even got phone lines put into them. Just get out there, dig up the roads, string the fibre across poles, do whatever, just do bloody something. They've taken lots of public money over years to achieve the objectives they're saying are so hard to meet and it still hasn't fixed the problem.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      There's either a huge lack of competition, collusion, or both. Oh, and political criminality. There's always that to throw into the mix.

  4. Fullbeem

    For those ultra rural areas then, why do they not introduce internet connectivity via WiFi like other small local providers provide

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > Once it's installed and the contract expires, then I can switch to someone else.

    Except that the current FTTP-on-demand product carries a *wholesale* monthly line rental of £99+VAT on a 36-month contract (in addition to the construction costs).

    That's why no ISP will touch it; they would have to charge you at least £150 per month for your broadband, just to cover their costs.

    As for switching providers - I would expect that the £99+VAT wholesale monthly line rental would continue indefinitely.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      @AC £99 - bloody hell! Really? We have FTTP for about £40 / month, cancel whenever we like after the first year. We had to pay £150 for connection - but that first year is long gone now, and we’re sticking with the service. It’s too good to ignore.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If you are in a native FTTP area, then you're lucky. About 2% of the population have access to this.

        It's FTTP *on demand* which has the mad pricing; but it shows up on the availability checkers and so people get excited.

        1. AndrueC Silver badge
          Happy

          It's improving a bit from February next year.

          The problem is that it's never going to be cheap enough. The internet market in the UK doesn't need it (yet). Most people are still happy to bimble along on an up to 40Mb/s connection. Or indeed ADSL. As long as they can read their email, post to farcebook, twat around on twitter and watch a bit of iPlayer they are content. You don't need FTTP for that. You don't even need top-end FTTC unless you have a family with teenage kids who play a lot of games and/or watch a lot of IPTV at high resolution.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    "Look, if you can't get decent broadband, it is a real pisser..." - starts well...

    "...so socialising costs across a very large base..." - but with this type, the corporate wank is never far from the surface.

    "If it was I would take it on the chin. Until everyone has decent broadband – for which I hold myself accountable – the have-nots will not be pleased with me." - a slight recovery, he's actually mentioned responsibility.

    So now, he needs to shut up and deliver. That'll be much harder.

  7. wyatt

    WarwickNet have recently popped up near me, they say they specialise in providing internet access to business parks: http://www.warwicknet.com/products

    Unfortunately they still can't supply me, but you never know, might change one day.

  8. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    £7Bn Pensions defecit?

    Yes that sounds like a very healthy business model. One that Phillip Green would be very proud of.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

      I truly don't understand how any company is allowed to run a pension deficit. If your business model is such that it can't afford to make its pension contributions then it is a broken business model. I don't know how Corp.'s are able to raid pension funds either, but apparently that happens. Both of those sound to me like corrupt political decisions caused by corrupt politicians.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

        > I truly don't understand how any company is allowed to run a pension deficit

        Because in the 80s and 90s, companies were told by their actuaries that their pension schemes were in surplus. They were *forbidden* to make further contributions for that period. Those contributions instead turned into profits, which were taxed and handed over to shareholders.

        Unfortunately, actuaries seem to think that if the economy is currently running in a particular way, it will always run in that way; they seem unable to conceive that rainy days could be ahead, until it's too late. Witness Equitable Life and their Guaranteed Annuity Rates.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

          >> I truly don't understand how any company is allowed to run a pension deficit

          Also because the formula used by the actuaries, with government-approved rates of inflation, interest, mortality etc. told them that paying in only 6~9% of pensionable pay for 40 years was sufficient to provide an index linked final salary pension for the rest of an employee's life...

          Currently, you need to be contributing in somewhere between 20~25% of your pensionable salary each year if you wish to achieve a commensurate pension...

      2. Bob the Skutter

        Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

        Because the Bank of England base rate has been next to nothing for the past 8 years.

        A decent rate rise would get rid of most pension schemes deficits. Also don't forget Gordon Browns pension tax raid.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

          A decent rate rise would get rid of most pension schemes deficits.

          And transfer the 'deficit' to peoples pockets by making things like car loans, mortgages etc. more expensive...

      3. Tom 38

        Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

        I truly don't understand how any company is allowed to run a pension deficit.

        Pension funds are in deficit when their holdings will not purchase sufficient annuities for their liabilities. Annuity rates depend on many things; interest rates, economy etc. These pension funds were not in deficit before the financial crisis, but now you need significantly more money to purchase those annuities and so the funds are in structural deficit.

    2. Mike Scott 1

      Re: £7Bn Pensions defecit?

      So the provision of critical infrastructure is now being stymied by the pension scheme deficit of the prime telecoms provider. How has this been allowed to happen? The cumulative failure of regulators and governments. The UK looks more like a banana republic every day.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe someone can help me out because I'm failing to see how privatisation has improved this service, the only thing it has added is another set of people earning money (shareholders) which otherwise could have been invested back into it.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      . . . Did you have the joyful experiance of dealing with the GPO/BT pre-privatisation?

      1. John G Imrie
        Happy

        . . . Did you have the joyful experiance of dealing with the GPO/BT pre-privatisation?

        No. I lived in Hull.

    2. AndrueC Silver badge
      Stop

      Maybe someone can help me out because I'm failing to see how privatisation has improved this service

      I'm guessing you are less than 50 years old. Few people who remember the 'halcyon' days of the GPO will agree with you. To be fair the GPO had a great research arm and came up with a lot of good stuff. Unfortunately them wot held the purse strings (UK Government PLC) never really gave them the money to actually use the stuff they invented or else hamstrung it by not allowing them to improve the network connecting the shiny stuff.

      BT was created because the government wasn't prepared to invest the money needed to upgrade the core to fibre. BT even offered to FTTP the entire country in the early 90s (and was gearing up for it by building fibre factories). But Maggie decided that competition would be better so invited the cable companies in instead. So BT sold off the factories and went back to peddling copper connections.

      1. strum

        >BT was created because the government wasn't prepared to invest the money needed to upgrade the core to fibre.

        You've mangled the history rather a lot.

        Privatisation was originally mooted to pay for digitalisation (System X), Nothing to do with fibre. Govt feared that BT would have to borrow immense sums, which would appear on govt's books, making them look like spendthrifts.

        But the '82 election put off BT privatisation. After the election, Maggie's new govt proposed BT privatisation as an ideological wonder (and a crude bribe to the emerging shareholding classes).

        But, by then, BT had already installed System X in 60% of their exchanges, and completed the rollout, funded entirely from revenue.

        Like most of them, this privatisation was a botched job, truning a govt monopoly into a private one - which required so many regulations it was hardly worth doing (except for that bribe, of course).

  10. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    Just an idea...

    The government likes giving BT money to make that "Final Connection" to the small villages because BT says it's not profitable for them to do it themselves. OK, i can live with that. But how about then, all that money from the government has strings attached, such that it cant be used to connect any town bigger than say 2000 People. Fow towns bigger then that, let market forces sort it out.

    If the cities are where it's profitable, let BT (sorry Openreach) use their profits to get the fibre to where the market wants it...

  11. EnviableOne

    BT revisionist

    BTs Voice network was state of the art in 1978, but it then sat on its monopoly for 20 years while the rest of the world were building fibre networks and even downgraded the data carying potential by patching some bits of the network with Alu and not keeping records of which bits that was.

    When they woke up a bit, they though ADSL2+ was a fix (cos nobody needs more than 24Mbps) untill they had to rapidly re-think and try to bolt FTTC onto the core designed for ADSL2+

    Now they are looking at a USO of 10MB, and a FTTP roll-out, they are going to have to look at capacity in the core, improving the peering (see Telecity Fails) and maybe flogging off the copper

  12. JamesGB

    Openreach creates a monopoly for BT.

    If you move to FTTP and don't have a copper line as well as fibre you will be given a new phone number. BT are breaching Ofcom rules because they can't transfer numbers from copper to FTTP or vice versa, nor can they transfer numbers between FTTP premises even when both locations are on the same exchange.

    For those of us unfortunate enough to be on FTTP only (without copper) and having to use Fibre Voice Access (FVA) for voice telephony, you can't change provider because BT are the only provider to support FVA. In my opinion, from the emails I've seen between BT and Openreach, this was and is deliberate market manipulation to give BT a monopoly on provision of service.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like