Price Rises For Upgrading Network

[nicke261192]

Since ISP’s are on about raising there package prices and/or reducing the speed of their services to raise the money to upgrade their networks so they can cope with the amount of traffic that is expected online in the near future I was just wondering because the Virgin Media cable network is capable of 100Mbps will Virgin need to upgrade their networks also? If they do need to upgrade it do you think they will raise the cost of the services?

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2080070/BBC-live-internet-broadcasts-%27to-cause-broadband-price-rises%27.html)

[AbyssUnderground]

Since ISP’s are on about raising there package prices and/or reducing the speed of their services to raise the money to upgrade their networks so they can cope with the amount of traffic that is expected online in the near future I was just wondering because the Virgin Media cable network is capable of 100Mbps will Virgin need to upgrade their networks also? If they do need to upgrade it do you think they will raise the cost of the services?

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2080070/BBC-live-internet-broadcasts-%27to-cause-broadband-price-rises%27.html)

Virgins network comprises of mostly fiber so they don't have to upgrade that but they will have to upgrade the cable side which is why they are making the upgrade to DOCSIS3.

DOCSIS3 however isn't going to support them for long at the rate of speed increase. Look at Sweden. They have 100Mbps and 1Gbps to the home in the city through fiber. If we are going to end up like them (and I hope we do but it won't be soon thats for sure) then we need to go fiber now, not in years to come.

This is why I don't understand BT. Why aren't they rolling out fiber but sticking to old copper? Well it is down to cost but the sooner they start, the sooner they can finish. They don't have to do it all at once. Do it where demand is most, make profit from it, and then upgrade the other areas later. A simple yet effective plan in my mind.

[BenMcr]

This is why I don't understand BT. Why aren't they rolling out fiber but sticking to old copper? Well it is down to cost but the sooner they start, the sooner they can finish. They don't have to do it all at once. Do it where demand is most, make profit from it, and then upgrade the other areas later. A simple yet effective plan in my mind.

I thought ADSL doesn't work over fiber though, so running fiber is pointless unless you can build a whole exchange on in (as they are doing for the Thames Gateway thing)

Doing a mixed technology exchange is surely just asking for trouble

[AbyssUnderground]

I thought ADSL doesn't work over fiber though, so running fiber is pointless unless you can build a whole exchange on in (as they are doing for the Thames Gateway thing)

Doing a mixed technology exchange is surely just asking for trouble

Well ADSL doesn't work over fiber directly obviously but you have to think, exchanges probably have fiber into them anyway in most cases. What I was getting at, is why don't they do what VM do and run fiber to a local cab, then use copper for the rest of the way, again like VM. Coaxial is still copper isn't it albeit slightly different method of using it.

[dev]

Well ADSL doesn't work over fiber directly obviously but you have to think, exchanges probably have fiber into them anyway in most cases. What I was getting at, is why don't they do what VM do and run fiber to a local cab, then use copper for the rest of the way, again like VM. Coaxial is still copper isn't it albeit slightly different method of using it.

i guess because it put VM (well ntl) into a massive debt and seeing as BT have a bigger network they'll need a lot more money and no doubt would go into debt.

[AbyssUnderground]

i guess because it put VM (well ntl) into a massive debt and seeing as BT have a bigger network they'll need a lot more money and no doubt would go into debt.

Thats why I'm saying it would be a good idea for BT to roll it out on a per-need basis, EG roll it out to places where there is demand and they will make money, rather than to places they might not. This wouldn't put them into debt. Think about it, they're a huge company. I don't think they're going to go into debt that easily. VM on the other hand is small in comparison with a huge debt and less profit.

[DJ2liveUK]

This is why I don't understand BT. Why aren't they rolling out fiber but sticking to old copper? Well it is down to cost but the sooner they start, the sooner they can finish. They don't have to do it all at once. Do it where demand is most, make profit from it, and then upgrade the other areas later. A simple yet effective plan in my mind.


I think you'll find that BT wanted to put fibre in a long time ago, but the government would not allow it. Too much cost in tearing the roads up and laying the cables. If this had been allowed then BT and VM would be in direct competition and it would have been better for the consumers in my opinion, as it stands VM are really the only home users option if wanting to go fibre to coax and have a pretty steady speed.

[TraxData]

This is why I don't understand BT. Why aren't they rolling out fiber but sticking to old copper? Well it is down to cost but the sooner they start, the sooner they can finish. They don't have to do it all at once. Do it where demand is most, make profit from it, and then upgrade the other areas later. A simple yet effective plan in my mind.


BT are rolling fibre (ftth) out on all new builds from now on providing 100mbit access (although taking the same route as VM with a poor upload of 2.5mbit)

They dont want to roll out fibre across the country for obvious reasons, it will cost them 12.5billion roughly...and they will be -forced- to open it up to other companies, would you spend that much money just to be forced to give it to other companies so they can make a profit and leave you out of pocket?