BT "Race to Infinity" site

Hi guys, you've probably seen the tv ads now but I just wanted to say the website has impressed me. I'm very much a cable guy but it wouldn't hurt to register your local exchange for BT's offering, there's no way (I think!) BT would let their 'fibre' network get swamped and oversubscribed like VM.

I like how the site shows live exchange registration info, and if you're on a small exchange and get enough people to register your % will climb quite quickly as it's based on connected premises to each exchange

http://www.racetoinfinity.bt.com/

Kudos to BT, could be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Originally Posted by theoldbill

if you're on a small exchange and get enough people to register your % will climb quite quickly as it's based on connected premises to each exchange .

And if you're on a *very* small exchange, when you try to sign up you get a message saying you're not eligible.

Unfortunately BT is obeying its universal service obligations to the letter, and no further, and there remains no sign in Government of any adjustment to the ridiculously low obligation to deliver 28kbps.

They will put Infinity only where they think they can make money out of it quickly. Unfortunately this means in many areas they are simply doubling up the fibre network already in place and in the ownership of VM. So many towns and cities will have a choice of which fibre network to use while many other locations will still have none.

Joined up it aint.

[Zhadnost]

I thought I read a story a couple of years ago that suggested BT will no longer have an obligation to provide a universal service. (of any description).

This was leading to fears of a lot of Market 1 exchanges closing down.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

And if you're on a *very* small exchange, when you try to sign up you get a message saying you're not eligible.

Unfortunately BT is obeying its universal service obligations to the letter, and no further, and there remains no sign in Government of any adjustment to the ridiculously low obligation to deliver 28kbps.

They will put Infinity only where they think they can make money out of it quickly. Unfortunately this means in many areas they are simply doubling up the fibre network already in place and in the ownership of VM. So many towns and cities will have a choice of which fibre network to use while many other locations will still have none.

Joined up it aint.

Perfectly joined up. Even if sharing 50-50 with VM they'll still make more money for less outlay out of the 2/3rds of the country they are covering on the commercial rollout than many more remote areas.

BT are, after all, a business. I believe you're on the end of miles of pole mounted cable, less than 10 premises. Bit of a struggle for BT to justify building a new cabinet and a huge fibre run to that cabinet along with all the fibre to the exchange and the other very spread our premises served by that exchange needing new fibre and cabinets.

The current cabinets are to handle 230+ connections, not about 6. It's not just about sticking something shiny in the exchange and being done with it unfortunately.

[Kymmy]

LOL just registered and there's 17 votes for my small little exchange

[Jayster]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

LOL just registered and there's 17 votes for my small little exchange

Mine only has 34 =/

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Perfectly joined up. Even if sharing 50-50 with VM they'll still make more money for less outlay out of the 2/3rds of the country they are covering on the commercial rollout than many more remote areas.

BT are, after all, a business. I believe you're on the end of miles of pole mounted cable, less than 10 premises. Bit of a struggle for BT to justify building a new cabinet and a huge fibre run to that cabinet along with all the fibre to the exchange and the other very spread our premises served by that exchange needing new fibre and cabinets.

The current cabinets are to handle 230+ connections, not about 6. It's not just about sticking something shiny in the exchange and being done with it unfortunately.

There's nothing joined up about it - and I'm talking about regulation, with grant assistance where necessary, not cold hard business. I'm well aware that BT are a business, but I am also well aware that there are plenty of pieces of essential infrastructure in this country that are beyond the means of private business to build or maintain. That's why the roads and (to all intents and purposes) the railways are not in private hands. The Government needs to be committed to substantially raising the universal requirement for data and then looking for infrastructure partners to bid to install it in the places BT says aren't cost-effective. I'm sure you have read some of the same stories that I have about BT suddenly finding it can fibre-up villages for a fraction of its original stated cost when it looked like the community council was about to go and get someone else to do it for them. Either BT or someone else ought to be able to run fast broadband to the furthest reaches of the UK, with Government help.

Setting up as a small rural business myself, I meet a lot of other people who are doing exactly the same, and the common thread with all of us is the need for fast, reliable internet connectivity. If we can't get it, then we have to commute, clogging up the roads and spending our newspaper, coffee and lunch money in places other than the small communities where we live and would prefer to work.

This country desperately needs decentralizing, and the internet is the best news we've ever had in that respect. But as the things you can do with the internet increasingly assume you have access to endless megs of bandwidth it gets no easier to use the internet as a means of working at, or near, a rural home.

As for our local set-up ... I'll have you know the exchange has 116 lines attached, not 10. And only a handful of them are at the furthest extent of the pole-mounted copper.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

As for our local set-up ... I'll have you know the exchange has 116 lines attached, not 10. And only a handful of them are at the furthest extent of the pole-mounted copper.

Ya. The street cabinet my line connects to outside our road has more than that.

Wireless / satellite for you I have to think. In most countries you wouldn't even have the dodgy DSL you do.

The Scottish Executive paid for dish connections for all the premises north of here that wanted them, as the DSL speed drops off a cliff right after it passes our house. Unfortunately what you gain in speed and reliability is more than offset by the terrifyingly high price of subscribing to one of the satellite-based services.

I take your point about most countries not even having dodgy 2-meg DSL, but then most countries still have a problem with cholera. We're (miraculously) still a G7 economy and we should be paying a little more attention to the infrastructure needs that will keep us there.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

Setting up as a small rural business myself, I meet a lot of other people who are doing exactly the same, and the common thread with all of us is the need for fast, reliable internet connectivity. If we can't get it, then we have to commute, clogging up the roads and spending our newspaper, coffee and lunch money in places other than the small communities where we live and would prefer to work.

Nice one on the business and I'm sorry to hear that but unsure why tax payers should pay for you to get faster Internet because you would prefer to work in the small community in which you live.

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I take your point about most countries not even having dodgy 2-meg DSL, but then most countries still have a problem with cholera. We're (miraculously) still a G7 economy and we should be paying a little more attention to the infrastructure needs that will keep us there.

Absolutely, though I'm unsure of the value of paying 7 figures to enable just over 100 homes.

For all the discussion of terrifyingly expensive services for people as remote as you most services are terrifyingly expensive to provide

For the same reason as taxpayers pay out for any number of business support grants, loans, Business Gateway type organisations, etc. It's not about paying me so much as it's about investing in means of doing business other than the traditional everyone-pile-on-the-0630-to-StPancras model - investment with the intention of realising a return.

A resilient, decentralised economy is less vulnerable to upsets in the transport system (whether that be weather, roadworks or striking tube drivers) and, crucially, is lower carbon as well as creating new tax income streams for HMG.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

For all the discussion of terrifyingly expensive services for people as remote as you most services are terrifyingly expensive to provide

I know that ... but look at it this way. We have had estimates to get the road outside our house relaid, as it's 50 years old and arguably beyond patching. The cost to completely remove and re-lay it is in the region of £50,000 (a cost that, if it ever came to it, is thankfully shared with the neighbours).

The cost of replacing tarmac roads is absolutely vast - but nobody would argue against replacing them when necessary, wherever they are, regardless of how remote.

My argument is that in our modern economy, fast internet connectivity should be seen as just as important as a serviceable road. The argument should be over exactly how the universal data highway is built and maintained, not whether or not it should be done.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

For the same reason as taxpayers pay out for any number of business support grants, loans, Business Gateway type organisations, etc. It's not about paying me so much as it's about investing in means of doing business other than the traditional everyone-pile-on-the-0630-to-StPancras model - investment with the intention of realising a return.

A resilient, decentralised economy is less vulnerable to upsets in the transport system (whether that be weather, roadworks or striking tube drivers) and, crucially, is lower carbon as well as creating new tax income streams for HMG.

The only viable solution for yourself even with subsidies is wireless. A fibre based solution would be an enormous sum.

No-one forced you to live out in the sticks you chose to, why should the tax payer fund your lifestyle choice by bringing the infrastructure to you?

Nothing personal by the way I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I'm also somewhat annoyed that some bits of the UK are getting public money to supply them the best services in the country while others are entirely left to the market. IMHO it's a total rebuild or nothing, it's actually quite unfair on urbanites to supply higher quality fibre solutions to those in rural areas with their taxes.

I know. And my argument isn't personal either - it's not about HMG subsidising me, it's about them investing in a very large number of people like me, who either are, or could, set up and run successful businesses without having to desert rural areas or place further burdens on our already creaking and groaning cities.

It's only about funding my lifestyle choice to the extent that the style I have chosen is one that is better able to meet this country's carbon emissions targets, for example, and also offers the possibility of a tax income stream to HMG that isn't vulnerable to over-stretched transport systems and crowded cities.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Perfectly joined up. Even if sharing 50-50 with VM they'll still make more money for less outlay out of the 2/3rds of the country they are covering on the commercial rollout than many more remote areas.

BT are, after all, a business. I believe you're on the end of miles of pole mounted cable, less than 10 premises. Bit of a struggle for BT to justify building a new cabinet and a huge fibre run to that cabinet along with all the fibre to the exchange and the other very spread our premises served by that exchange needing new fibre and cabinets.

The current cabinets are to handle 230+ connections, not about 6. It's not just about sticking something shiny in the exchange and being done with it unfortunately.

Of course remember this final 3rd has many city areas and also there is a quite a few rural exchanges in the 2/3.

I dont buy that having a small slice of a large pie is always better either, I would expect been the only supplier in the area and having a monopoly has a very large perk in that you can hike the prices very high to offset higher infrastructure costs.

[Zhadnost]

Have BT been removing exchanges from the rollout plan? The last time I checked, Fareham was set for early next year, now it's not on the rollout at all.