- UK broadband is slow and costly: slowest and most expensive broadbandconnections in the world.
- Posted by John Geddes on July 17th, 2007
Billy wrote:
The most notable comment in the report is that the UK has a much higher
minimum-cost for Broadband than many other OECD countries.
That is constraining the uptake of broadband among considerable numbers
of users. I have three near neighbours still on dialup because they
consider the £170+ first-year cost of Broadband just too much given
their modest (current) internet usage.
And that is a loss not only to them, but to society and to our supposed
"knowledge" economy, which is constrained by the "missing" users -
people who might use online services if they could enjoy the
responsiveness of Broadband speeds, but who find it too painful (or
completely unusable) at dialup speeds.
Other countries are managing to provide moderate-rate low-cost always-on
services - what a tragedy that Oftel/Ofcom were not given the powers (or
did not have the wit) to deliver the same.
John Geddes
Derbyshire
- Posted by Mark McIntyre on July 17th, 2007
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:15:32 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband , John
Geddes <john@st4rm4rkassociates.co.uk> wrote:
Er, I've just ordered it for my Dad for £120, Thats only £48 pa more
than dialup.
By levying hefty taxes to install subsidised fibre to all metro
areas....
Whats Ofcom got to do with it?
--
Mark McIntyre
- Posted by John Geddes on July 18th, 2007
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Sorry - don't understand your figures. For someone who already has a
fixed-line phone, the marginal cost of dialup internet use is simply the
cost of calls - light users might only be spending a couple of pounds a
month for checking emails and the odd few minutes of web browsing.
Ofcom, and Oftel before it, were set up to try and "square the circle" -
to constrain the monopoly handed to BT, with the aim of delivering a
dynamic and highly-efficient telecoms industry.
The focus from the outset was on pricing baskets (perhaps because they
hired an accountancy professor as the first Oftel DG) - had they worried
more about specific market distortions, they would surely have had the
powers to address them.
John Geddes
- Posted by Gizmo. on July 18th, 2007
"John Geddes" <john@st4rm4rkassociates.co.uk> wrote in message
news:22ovm4-k7k.ln1@chiron.w3z.co.uk...
Give examples of such countries and ISPs.
- Posted by Mark McIntyre on July 18th, 2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:45:15 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband , John
Geddes <john@st4rm4rkassociates.co.uk> wrote:
Huh? Since when was dialup free except for calls?
No, oftel was set up to /regulate/ the denationalised industry and
prevent abuse. It was not set a goal of providing a fibre network to
every doorstep.
--
Mark McIntyre
- Posted by George Weston on July 18th, 2007
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:vm6t93983e3sjcf4b266bqds4csagakci1@4ax.com...
Absolutely - and BT was actually prevented by Oftel from competing in many
areas with the "new upstarts" - such as Mercury (remember them? No?), and
was also constrained in its ability to increase prices for very many years.
In short, Oftel was there to hold BT back and give a leg-up to new
competition.
George
- Posted by Eeyore on July 18th, 2007
George Weston wrote:
Good Lord ! At one point I had Mercury. I nearly forgot that.
At one time you could even get phones with a 'Mercury Button' to route your call
over their network !
Graham
- Posted by Marcus Redd on July 19th, 2007
"George Weston" <geoweston@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5g7lesF3f3vcsU1@mid.individual.net...
Which was a good idea too - otherwise BT, the well-established giant, would
simply have reduced it's prices to something ridiculous until it had safely
killed off any competition and then put them back up again. Like a certain
"favourite" airline did...
- Posted by George Weston on July 19th, 2007
"Marcus Redd" <read@it.com> wrote in message
news:469f3f6a$0$31239$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosti ng.com...
You're not wrong!
George
