Is BT's fibre rollout a waste of money?

I'm sure if BT only invested in non-Virgin areas, they'd be accused of trying to create a monopoly...

By piphil on 26 Nov 2009

It's not a waste as far as BT's bottom line is concerned as it will be moving into direct competition with Virgin, but as far as consumers and Britain's overall broadband strategy are concerned it's a monumental duplication of effort and a colossal waste of money. I hope no tax payer's money is going in to this. The state is not there to subsidise the private sector.

The UK government needs to get fiber to new customers, not to subsidies one company against another.

By Perfectblue97 on 26 Nov 2009

Are there any blue chip company's the government does NOT subsidise?

As Virgin Media is far too expensive for most ( hence the low take up of its 50Mb service).
Most people can only afford ADSL+2 service that uses BT's network.
Now BT and Virgin Media can fight out a price war that might benefits the consumer.

Yes we tax payers are subsiding BT. However we are already subsiding loads of private company's:-

Car producers via the car scraping program.

Selected boiler fitting company's via the government grants for the old and people on benefits to get them fitted free.

Crude Oil via many wars over access to the stuff.

Banks Via Government cash loans / gifts.


Drug company's as our Fixed price NHS subscriptions don't reflect the low or high price of drugs, hence high price drugs are subsidised.

The list is endless, the real winners are the big company's who benefit from the Governments generosity on our behalf.

By Tibbs on 26 Nov 2009

Low take up?

In my more cynical moments, I wonder if this is a deliberate ploy on the part of BT to justify not investing in fibre.
"We spent £1.5Million on bringing 40Mb to these areas and only a very small number of people wanted to be connected"
- Yes BT, because the rest are already customers of Virgin with 50Mb...

By greemble on 26 Nov 2009

Virgin ex-customer

Virgin broadband failed too often and they always blamed my setup. My setup did not change I had to wait hours or days until they found the fault at their end. Their customer support was useless as they only knew Outlook Express as an email client and did not know that Virgin had more than one server. I now depend on a 45 year old BT copper line for broadband and get a better service.

A friend is charged £17 per month for 1Mbps and gets 640kbps from Virgin who offer 10Mbps for £14 but only if you are a new customer. Loyalty means nothing to them. We need BT fibre in Virgin areas.

By misceng on 3 Dec 2009

Virgin customer still - just!

misceng - your friend is lucky!
My Virgin Broadband (up to 8Mbps) usually operates at less than 500Kbps and a few days ago dropped down to 18Kbps!
And, as you say, Virgin are not in the slightest bit interested, blaming it on my setup, even though my laptop is only about 18 months old and I've been complaining for about 3 years!
But is there anyone better if you don't live next door to the telephone exchange?

By Jaycee99 on 3 Dec 2009

Not everyone in a Virgin area can get it!

I moved into a new house in a Virgin (then Telewest) area and they would not connect me as it would require digging a hole in the pavement and there was no budget to do so! I am moving soon to another property where the same thing applies.

By shallam0984 on 3 Dec 2009

Not everyone in a Virgin area can get it!

I moved into a new house in a Virgin (then Telewest) area and they would not connect me as it would require digging a hole in the pavement and there was no budget to do so! I am moving soon to another property where the same thing applies.

By shallam0984 on 3 Dec 2009

Exceptions are not the rule

Just because individual cases may be bad doesn't tell us anything about the majority of experience. I don't know any service that is 10% perfect for everyone. The idea that people are clamouring for 40-50Mb is drivel. I wouldn't base anything on the reports of people signed up to PC Pro! Most people, including me as a heavy internet user, sign up to the bottom speed. On Cable this is now 10Mb. I've checked mine and those of other people I know on Cable and the lowest tested speed I've ever seen is 9918 at busy times, with the majority being over 10Mb. Some people have a problem? Inevitably. It's the exception.

One friend inexplicably changed from Virgin to Sky in order to get HD and other services. Their broadband plumetted to less than 1Mb. I phoned up to get some technical help for them and was told their 8Mb service should be providing 1.6Mb at that time, not the 162k I'd measured. We tweaked some things and I measured 1.4Mb - technically the problem was solved. I tested again over the next hour and it plumetted to 1.2, 1.1 and ended around 800k. This was also normal with BT\Sky. Anyone using them would have to be mad, especially when a virtually guaranteed 10Mb was available at minimum cost.

BT fibre is a waste of money because the company and its contractors are institutionally incapable of installing it at the level of the exchange. I know this because I've worked for them. The hoops they require to jump through are so convoluted and reinforced by levels of "management" that it will simply never, ever, ever arrive.

Sad news for users. Great news for BT and contractors as they will have lucrative jobs for several lifetimes. Until people see this there will always be complaints. If BT ever got to the stage where they seriously could deliver fibre, they would find a way to prevent it happening.

By sidcelerye on 3 Dec 2009

Oops

Meant "100% perfect" above, obviously :(

By sidcelerye on 3 Dec 2009

colinday2

It would appear that some people don't understand the phrase 'being in a Virgin Media area', this doesn't mean you get Virgin broadband but that you get Virgin cable

By colinday2 on 3 Dec 2009

Virgin Media

as colinday2 said being in the vicinity of a cable does not mean that you can get virgin broadband the afore mentioned cable bypasses my address by as litle as twenty meters or so so roll on BT fibre.

By phat_boab_6 on 10 Dec 2009