I work in the network department of a large ISP, so i might be able to add something to this discussion. Yes Local Loop Unbundling or Unbundled Local Loop in Europe (LLU/ ULL) is a solution but the problem is that there are two types of LLU, and most ISP's AFAIK will be taking the option where you still have to pay BT line rental. I'll start with what LLU is: The process of getting a line involves splitting the phone line at the exchange so that voice traffic and Internet traffic travels to different equipment. BT charges to do this, i have forgotten the actual price, but i think that it is in the range of £30 - £60. This is why the ISP that youget your line unbundled for will lock you into a twelve month contract. Now back to the two types of LLU. The first type of LLU is where both lines at the exchange are moved out of BT's equipment and put into another operators equipment (which is sitting in space rented from BT). From then on all traffic is sent through that equipment and not through BT, so that operator is responsible for voice and Internet traffic and you don't pay BT any line rental. The second type of LLU is where the voice line at the local exchange is left in BT equipment, and the Internet traffic is passed onto another operators equipment. In this case you still pay BT line rental. The majority of the large ISP's (Wanadoo, AOL ect) will be running the partial type of LLU for a few years. The smaller ISP's (Homechoice, Bulldog) will be using the full LLU type i think. Also to rub salt into the wound the claims that a lot of ISP's are making about speed are misleading. Once you get beyond a mile from an exchange the signal starts to degrade markedly. SO even though you could have an unbundled line that claims 8meg you could end up getting nearer to 1. Hope this clears a few things up.
My MP, who is a total legend, has been actively chasing this issue with BT, and received the following response, which he forwarded to me by post: It is, of course, clear that BT has a right to recover the PSTN line costs they incur in servicing my line. The letter fails to address the point I made regarding tariffs, namely that, if you want broadband, you have to subscribe to one of BT's "Together" tariffs, which include discounted call rates. It follows that, if I have no use for the phone line, I am not getting a good deal. The cheaper "light user" tariffs specifically and arbitrarily preclude the use of the line for broadband, despite the fact that the cost to BT would be zero. My position is that it would be economically beneficial for BT to collect £10 a quarter from me for line rental on a line which produces no traffic on their network and exposes them to no additional expense, than to collect nothing at all for maintaining an unconnected line into my house, which they are doing at present. With an unbundled broadband service, there is zero marginal cost to BT, so I struggle to see any other justification for restricting its availability to the higher rental "Together" tariffs than pure exploitation of their monopoly position.
maybe you're on one of the old tariffs that aren't available any more. All I know is that, if you try to get BT to set up a new line for you, and you want to be able to use a broadband service, you MUST sign up to one of the "Together" plans, which start at £10.50 a month, which, if you have no need of a landline phone, is daylight robbery for a bit of wire going into your house. Hence my ire, and hence why BT won't be getting a penny out of me until they fix up their stupid pricing. Fortunately I have t'internet at work, so it's not a problem. The other thing that hacks me off is this: I live in the centre of London (zone 2). The cost to BT for servicing my line is miniscule because it's a densely populated area with many lines, so the cost is spread quite thinly. Contrast someone in the back of beyond, living in a two bit highland village with about four houses, a pub and a post office. So BT is spending a fortune maintaining their lines, but the cost to the villagers is the same. As such, I am effectively subsidising them. Why should that be so? In my view, you should pay for the actual cost of your line. If it isn't economical for BT to install and maintain a line to your house for £10 a month, you should have to pay more or go without. Nobody is forced to live in the sticks, just as nobody is forced to live in the city, so people who choose to live in the country but expect to get urban amenities at city prices really get my goat.
or ADSL? ! BTW wanadoo are planning on starting LLU when most of the UK can get 8meg, also it'll be called orange internet by then.
K sorry. Wanadoo like all of the other operators aren't just going to do the whole country over night. It costs several thousand pounds to get BT to convert each ISP's section of a single exchange over to LLU. We are talking millions for every exchange in the country. It is a fixed initial set up charge which takes up the bulk of the cost, with each line converted adding a small amount too. So the process they are all following is go go to the places with the best demographics first. London is a prime example, the cost of the conversion per customer is lower than a village in the middle of wales. Because of this there are areas where it just won't be cost effective to convert, unless there is a change in the pricing.
Another reason why London is being done first (for 24mbps) is because of the economic advantage. For 8mbps it's mainly inner cities, Southampton already has about 3 of it's 32 exchanges at 8mbps, and these are only for right in the middle of the city, a friend is lucky to be living on the edge an 8mbps enabled exchange so he gets that 2006 should be a good year for LLU.
Definately, its been slow so far for two reasons. The first ones done were tests of the whole process, and second there is a large lead time of a couple of months to getting BT to convert an exchange.
*dreams of purely digital connection with VoIP (QoS for bandwidth) across entire country (Fibre optic of course )
Consider yourselves lucky. I pay $53 a onth for 600Kb/sec over my cable modem and it's the fastest thing available here short of getting a T1. On top of that I pay another $25 a month for Vonage VoIP service, but I'm appy to not have a traditional phine line. I'd gladly shell out for 24 Mb/sec or 8 or even a measly 1 Mb/sec! I want my fibre!!!
I'm glad i moved from england 8/1 internet here for just over 26 euros a month which is around £17. And there adding ADSL2+ this year to for probably just as cheap . ! Free calls with the internet too, i'm not sure
Really interesting to see how thinks can be so different in england. Over here nobody that has ADSL has to use the phoneline. which means no fee no calling. i maybe know 2 people who uses the landline and that includes my Grandpa. I pay 17£ for a 2/1 adsl line nothing else. Mobilephone charges are so low here its almost free(0.6 cent a minute,no monthly fee). On the other hand i pay twice as much for a car then you guys.
Those are some decent prices, and illustrate my point - if telcos in other countries can do it, BT could do naked DSL and still turn a profit. Mind if I ask where you guys are located?
Free broadband? can't see that getting off the ground really, i mean, what are all the other Bb companies going to do? play cards? I know what you mean about Bt though, I used to pay £25 a month to them for the wire, then £40 to eclipse for a 2 Meg ADSL connection. I'm with NTL now, I get 10 meg down, 2 meg up for £30pm I think it's only supposed to be 512 up but i'm saying nothing hehe
I've had adsl for almost 3-4 years now(i think) I started with my own 56gay modem in my bedroom at home then went to ADSL. Now i have my own home i have ADSL and i pay BT £10.50 a month and i use CPS to get my calls from somebody else......... i agree that BT should charge you something for the use of the cables and the upkeep but £10.50 a month is too much. Also if they charged less on the line rental surely more people would buy bonded adsl services? I know i would seriously think about it if the line rental was say £10 p/q
