Sign in / up

back to article UK's Universal Service voucher scheme urged to shift monopoly away from BT

An MP is calling on the UK government to introduce a voucher scheme for universal broadband connectivity of at least 10Mbps, as a means of more effectively boasting rural broadband speeds. The government plans to mandate a USO target by 2020 in its Digital Economy Bill currently passing through Parliament. However, it emerged …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    I'm pretty sure...

    A couple of years ago El Reg ran a story about a rural community that were so fed up with the lack of decent broadband that they effectively set up their ISP to service their town but were then told to turn it off after some legal challenge by BT or someone???

    2 0 Reply
  2. wiggers

    Government Cash = Taxpayer Cash

    "government would have to stump up the cash"

    Why do people keep thinking the gov't has all this cash at it's disposal? It is our money! But yes, the best way is to provide vouchers to people who can't afford the full price of the service, rather than trying to force providers to do what isn't profitable.

    2 2 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Government Cash = Taxpayer Cash

      "rather than trying to force providers to do what isn't profitable."

      So who do you force? Do you have a hat and tell City Fibre they have to provide a link to the Outer Shetland isles?

      Or tell BT they have to do it (one of the few companies that actually do provide connections outside of large towns and cities), because they are the biggest?

      I think that for community led projects are the way ahead for many and the initial help may be what they need.

      It's for this sort of thing that we do pay our taxes for.

      2 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Government Cash = Taxpayer Cash

      "rather than trying to force providers to do what isn't profitable."

      Getting water from Elan Valley, Mid Wales via a 73 mile 2x42'' + 2x60" Aquaduct to Frankley Reservoir on the outskirts of Birmingham "isn't profitable", especially if you'd been charged the true going rate for the Land/Water, but in 1892 we didn't have accuntants like you, unable to see the bigger picture.

      Maybe rural folk should start being a bit more savvy regarding the resources on their doorstep in terms of City Folk, start telling them to pay the going rate, if this attitude is to continue.

      2 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    BT Thieves

    BT have been given the money to supply rural areas. They have not done so and kept it for themselves.

    Rather than fannying around with more profit generations schemes for a failed organisation, government should be holding these shysters to account and either get their money back or force BT to implement what they've been paid to do in the first place.

    [Paris Hilton icon because she has more of clue that BT management twonks]

    9 5 Reply
    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: BT Thieves

      "force BT to implement what they've been paid to do in the first place."

      Name your time scale for BT to do all this.

      Then show us your plan - schedules, personnel, training for personnel, list of equipment and meterials to be purchased, planning permissions, financing, redundancy of personnel on completion, etc - which would enable BT (or anyone else) to do it at your timescale which I assume is faster than they are doing it at present at present.

      You see, a lot of people come here accusing BT of dragging their feet but never seem to explain (a) how BT could do something at this scale quicker and (b) why the cable companies who were in this game years before BT was allowed in, haven't done the job already. Is it because they haven't the slightest idea but sounding off is really easy.

      3 1 Reply
      1. Richard 81
        Reply Icon

        Re: BT Thieves

        "Name your time scale for BT to do all this.

        Then show us your plan"

        Surely we name the timescale and then BT have to show us their plan?

        If our timescale is unreasonable, then it can be negotiated.

        5 0 Reply
        1. Roland6 Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: BT Thieves

          "Surely we name the timescale and then BT have to show us their plan will, having laughed their head off name a price and indicative timescale?

          If our timescale is unreasonable, then it can be negotiated."

          That is basically what happened the last time, with BT giving a price and indicative timeframe for 100% FTTP that made the politicians go weak at the knees; after some hurried backtracking and face-saving negotiations the BDUK program was announced, swiftly followed by additional funding to address some of the last 5%...

          .

          2 0 Reply
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: BT Thieves

        In terms of timescale, it's more the sentiment.

        More people would be on BT's side (in terms of the practicalities) if BT were pro-active, worked with Ofcom to at least put a final date on all new installs of bamboozled, obfuscated 'upto' Copper Lines. Instead, BT act like someone blocking the doorway to new entrants, sitting on the hands, waiting for more handouts.

        Consumers have had enough. Finally admit 'upto' Ultrafast Broadband 'Pointless' G.fast isn't the cheap solution, that its already obsolete, in the scheme of things. (in terms of blanket UK rollout of Ultrafast Broadband, new G.fast nodes need to be exponentially carpet bombed to be remotely effective in terms of Ultrafast coverage).

        Ofcom, let's get an actual date to stop installing Copper on new builds / instructure replacement, especially in areas like Wales that have paid massive sums to BT for Superfast Broadband rollout, where G.fast is possibly the worse solution given the Topology/Landscape/Weather/State of existing infrastructure.

        Pure/true FTTP should be the default in rural locations on all lines greater than 250m as the crow flies, 500m by cable (without new infill) 125m as the crow flies, 250m by cable is the 'ideal', but the first gives G.fast some technical 'stretching' of what its capable of, i.e. real World, if BT are still determined to use this 'Pointless' G.fast Copper/Alu Carcass Technology.

        Let's finally say - Copper/Alu Cabling is dead (in terms of sentiment). Yes it will take years, probably past 2030, but it's the sentiment that counts.

        BT need to admit they got it wrong regarding overhyping Pointless G.fast as their solution to the UK's Ultrafast Broadband rollout.

        BT bet the house on Pointless G.fast, and no one wants it (the Gov Budget statement says as much), because they know its more of the same, selectively rolled out, obfuscated, bamboozled 'upto' Speeds. Live nowhere near an existing FTTC cabinet, you're unlikely to see the greater benefits of Pointless G.fast anytime soon, with a 1:1 G.fast Cabinet upgrade. Crucially, rural Notspots on longer lines remain notspots.

        0 0 Reply
  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "Under a voucher scheme alternative, communities could decide in aggregate whom their preferred supplier would be, with the option of finding providers who are prepared to deliver beyond the minimum 10Mbps."

    It would need care. There have been community lead schemes but I'd worry about who the providers would be. I suspect that for the most part they'd be prepared to provide to schemes which are put forward by compact communities where servicing would be relatively easy and return on subsidised investment satisfactory. A farm or two lying half a mile or more outside the village might be left out as would the areas where housing is widely scattered. It would be back to the old cherry-picking of the original cable initiative and BT would then be left picking up the eternal money-losing work again.

    There's a reason why only BT was prepared to accept a USO. The rest just want to pick up the best-paying work and would go broke if they had to handle the rest.

    1 0 Reply
  5. AndrueC Silver badge
    Meh

    Worried that a USO might bolster BT profits? I'm not sure they understand what a USO is. It's an obligation on a service provider (BT in this case) to do something that they otherwise wouldn't choose to do. As such a USO is far more likely to reduce BT's profits by forcing them into the areas where profits are tiny to none-existent.

    And the voucher scheme has a flaw: Equivalence of Access. How is that going to work? That was the stumbling block with the original BDUK. The government quite rightly insists on that if public money is being used. Without it there's no choice and no competition. Rural communities are unlikely to be best served by being locked into a single ISP for the rest of all eternity.

    Unfortunately it comes at a cost and few CPs other than BT can stomach the effect that has on RoI.

    1 0 Reply
    1. Roland6 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: I'm not sure they understand what a USO is. It's an obligation on a service provider (BT in this case) to do something that they otherwise wouldn't choose to do.

      Whilst the current market grew up with BT having a USO for telephony, a concern must be whether it is appropriate to extend this to broadband; as it would effectively undermine the business case for many of the alt-net's. I suspect the politicians don't understand the real implications a USO would have on the market...

      1 0 Reply
  6. ChrisPateman

    YES: let the customer choose

    Simple enough: let's just have price-controlled wholesale access to backhaul from the nearest fibre-enabled cab or exchange. Then let's have the decision what kind of service to buy, and how much they're willing to pay for it, taken by the people at the end of the sub-loop.

    If there's a voucher to sweeten the deal, so much the better. But first, let's have mechanisms which empower the customer (or community of customers) to make a reasoned judgment about the balance of costs, benefits and pay-back periods. If they all want 100GB symmetrical FTTP, then let them source a commercial provider and balance the costs (net of any voucher subsidy) against squeezing 10Mb through existing copper pairs or microwave.

    Maybe they'll need to work in conjunction with the local authority. Or tourist board. Or anchor farmer or sawmill. Or a keen comms provider who's willing to defray the promise of future recurring revenues until the capital cost is paid down. Who knows? That's how markets work, isn't it? Demand creating innovative new delivery methods? But let's, please, stop treating customers as if they are too stupid to make a valued judgment. We don't sell them cars this way. Why do we try to hoodwink into 'smallest size fits all' telecoms?

    2 0 Reply
    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: YES: let the customer choose

      "Simple enough: let's just have price-controlled wholesale access to backhaul from the nearest fibre-enabled cab or exchange."

      And if there isn't a suitably placed fibre-enabled cab or exchange?

      It doesn't matter whether there's price-controlled wholesale access to something that doesn't exist. The problem is the logistics and costs of rolling out enough of those fibre-enabled cabs in widely scattered populations.

      3 1 Reply
    2. Steven Jones
      Reply Icon

      Re: YES: let the customer choose

      There is already price controlled access to fibre for back haul. Not from cabinets, but from fibre aggregation points (cabinets are not aggregation points - they only have the fibre required for their functioning). However, there are a large number of aggregation points as well.

      There are two problems though. The first is people complain even about price controlled fibre. However, the second is it doesn't get you very far on its own. It is the costs and logistics of running fibre to properties that is the killer.

      0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like