Re: BT plans UK's largest ever investment in super-fast broadband

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:04:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> George Weston wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1216288783.15256.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>> PeeGee wrote:
>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>> "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
message
>>>>> news:01c8e73d$a65ea160$LocalHost@default...
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the days of the GPO, there was a mandate that anyone in
the
>>>>>> British
>>>>>>> isles who wanted a telephone was entitled to have it at a
fixed
>>>>>>> rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if it meant stringing a radio link across a few miles
of
>>>>>>> north
>>>>>> sea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google USO (EUSpeak "Universal Service Obligation) for
what
>>>>>> replaced it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "service" in USO now includes narrowband modem usage.
>>>>> Oh big deal ;-)  That's generous of them. They are actually obliged
>>>>> to provide narrowband modem usage - wow!
>>>>>
>>>>> There really does need to be an obligation on BT to supply some
>>>>> level of broadband to everyone in range of the exchange who asks
for
>>>>> it, given that they are the de facto monopoly supplier except in
>>>>> places that have cable or a wireless internet scheme. They should
be
>>>>> obliged to upgrade their lines (both in terms of quality and
>>>>> sufficient number of pairs) and to remove any non-compatible
>>>>> cabling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The USO should be a *moveable* obligation which changes as new
>>>>> technology emerges, not which is static at the level of phone, fax
>>>>> and dial-up.
>>>>>
>>>> But should they be allowed to charge commercially viable prices for
>>>> providing such a service and not have to subsidise competitors who
>>>> want to use their infrastructure or should they continue to be forced
>>>> to fully follow the existing situation where competition only serves
>>>> high profit, low cost areas or is provided use of the infrastructure
>>>> at non-commercial rates?
>>>>
>>>> Note: the government definition of a "level playing field" is
based
>>>> on the old Yeovil Town football ground :-)
>>>>
>>> That is the whole frickin problem with BT. You cant privatise a de
>>> facto monopoly without a regulator, and then the argument becomes one
>>> of what the regulations are going to be. And who is going to subsidise
>>> the uneconomic bits.
>>>
>>> Frankly the last mile of copper ought to be locally owned and run as a
>>> not for profit service subsidised by the local councils Who would not
>>> hand over all the local taxes to the government.. And the backhauls
>>> should be the same, but under the control of the government centrally.
>>>
>>> Along with the national grid by and large.
>>
>> Which is now a PLC (like BT) - see:
>> http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/About+Us/Our+History/
>>
>>
> Precisely. Neither should be.
>
>> George
>>
>>

And if they were still in public hands we would still have dial phones
and Prestel.

If people are unhappy with what BT do, they are allowed to set up their
own network, dig up streets, provide customer connections etc.

I don't accept that other people should subsidise broadband for people
that want 'faster' services. This is a commercial, non essential service
at the end of the day. I hear plenty of small home businesses moan but
when you ask them to give away their stuff at a loss, or require a 200
year return on it they tend to shut up.



--
begin  oefixed_in_2005.exe
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

Frank t2 (17.07.2008 21:12)