Broadband Article

  J B 11:29 30 Jun 2007
Locked

I read this article in the Telegraph today and there are some interesting price comparisons between countries click here J.B.

  Jackcoms 11:58 30 Jun 2007

£5.60 per month for each Mbps in the UK??

It seems that, for reasons best known to themselves, a lot of people in this country are prepared to pay well over the odds for their BB service.

I'm paying £2.25 per month per Mbps and that includes free 'phone calls 24/7.

And, by the way, that's with Tiscali who for reasons which are beyond me, are regularly maligned in these Forums!

  GANDALF <|:-)> 12:37 30 Jun 2007

I am also paying around £2.25/month and 24/7 free phone calls with Tiscali, so the article sucks IMHO. I also cannot understand why Tiscali ar eregularly maligned.

G

  Forum Editor 13:53 30 Jun 2007

because it's a big company, and because it's a big company mistakes occur. It happens with all large organisations - there are no exceptions. Tiscali may or may not be better in that respect, I wouldn't know. One thing I do know is that my wife has a Tiscali connection at work, and she's not had a bad word to say about them.

Some people just itch to have a go at any big, successful business - it's an almost instinctive thing.

  amonra 15:19 30 Jun 2007

If BT pulled their finger out and replaced all the copper in the ground with fibre-optics then we would all benefit. Unfortunately they have not made the investment in underground equipment. The cable companies started from scratch years ago and HAD to instal F/O and are now reaping the benefits. France and Germany adopted the same policy a few years ago with the result that most major towns and cities have blistering fast connections for no increase in fees. Maybe one day . . . . . . . .

  Jackcoms 15:28 30 Jun 2007

"The cable companies started from scratch years ago"

Yes, and BT (and their predecessor, the Post Office) started from scratch years BEFORE that and used what was available at the time - copper.

I'm sure that BT would be perfectly wiling to replace all their copper with fibre optics if they were guaranteed that none of their millions of customers would moan when BT passed the horrendous cost of that replacement work onto them.

  Totally-braindead 15:43 30 Jun 2007

I just left Tiscali a few weeks ago. I was with them for perhaps 3 or 4 years I think. If all was well, and it usually was then that was great but to answer why they are maligned I can only give my problems with them. Email them and they reply with an answer that usually has absolutly nothing to do with what you asked in the first place meaning you have to phone them. Phone them and you cannot understand what some of the operators say, sometimes you have to phone back and hope you get someone else. And the reason I left them, no broadband for 3 days, they kept insisting the fault was on my PC, which it wasn't, cost me about £8 on phone calls, told me to take the PC back to the vendor and pay to get windows reinstalled which I refused to do as I was certain my PC was fine and all the tests they insisted I do proved that, and refused to test their end, eventually they agreed to run tests and I was told to phone back, phoned back next day and was told they weren't doing a line test, I had never asked for a line test and it wasn't necessary as the fault was on my PC, and the final straw, a phone call from them where they told me it was fixed, insisted the fault was on my PC and they had fixed it from their end. And they managed this without the PC being connected to the internet and without the thing even being switched on. They must be wizards.
That it why I left Tiscali. If you are with them and are happy then great.

  Forum Editor 15:44 30 Jun 2007

BT offered to run a fibre-optic cable connection to every home in Britain, free of charge, provided the government agreed to let the company have an exclusive contract to provide other services via the cable. They had it in mind to offer banking and shopping services, as well as TV channels.

The government refused, because Mrs. T thought the big cable companies would see the move as monopolistic, and she wanted more competition in the Telecoms industry.

  Totally-braindead 16:11 30 Jun 2007

Would it have been a good thing had that been allowed FE? If it had they would have had a complete monopoly and the other companies we have now possibly would not exist.
I'm in 2 minds about whether they made the right decision.

  Rigga 19:05 30 Jun 2007

The government at the time should have forced BT to split into two companies, one of which should have been brought back by government.

The new companies would have comprised a network company and a services company. The network one being owned by government.

This new government backed company could then have built the high speed network required.

Then all the current service providers would still exist and they would all use the same high speed network.

The biggest mistake was not splitting BT into network and services companies. No single network and services company is going to invest the needed money when there is not a guaranteed return, and they are forced into letting others use their expensive network.

BTW. I still think BT should be forced to split, and the network should be government backed.

R.

  laurie53 08:35 01 Jul 2007

I am always suspicious of computer related articles in the non-specialist press.

After all, if I wanted to know about the Glasgow bombing I would not turn to PCA!

Laurie

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

This is what design agencies will look like in 2032

How to update iOS on iPhone or iPad

WhatsApp : comment lire vos messages sans que l’expéditeur le sache