BT success

spurdog1

4 years ago as a long-standing (6years Plusnet fan) I moved to a large village. Speed was manageable. But a year ago after a change in circumstance I was offered the same 10MB package from BT, which suited me better.
Unfortunately, I was told my service was slow, but I thought it was the difference between town and village. After 6 months' patience, I challenged the 2.9 MB I was receiving. It has taken six months of conversation and a 40MB possibility, to prove my 2.9MB was slow.  I now receive the highest 6.6-6.8MB available in this village. However, I get a £5.00 discount per month. I have £5.00 per month backdated as a credit. I also have a promise in an email that the £5.00 per month is applicable for the next two years, and beyond that I believe. Is that a result?

tallmansix

Yes a result in terms of getting the discount and if you can live with 6.8mbps but in terms of value for money then definitely not.

Many people are getting 10 times that speed. Not sure what you pay monthly but lets say £15 with the discounts and compare with users getting 10 times the speed for say £30. Over even worse, I get 50 times faster internet but don't pay £750 a month!

About time the infrastructure in this country is sorted out, nobody should be having to wrangle over such slow speeds, I was getting 2mbps nearly 20 years ago!

spurdog1

Erm I did say living in a village (and, "no" I don't want virgin cables everywhere, hence why BT). But i wanted to improve on 2.9, and would have preferred 36MB. Hence my info. VFM no, but better than it was.

matelodave

tallmansix said:

Yes a result in terms of getting the discount and if you can live with 6.8mbps but in terms of value for money then definitely not.

Many people are getting 10 times that speed. Not sure what you pay monthly but lets say £15 with the discounts and compare with users getting 10 times the speed for say £30. Over even worse, I get 50 times faster internet but don't pay £750 a month!

About time the infrastructure in this country is sorted out, nobody should be having to wrangle over such slow speeds, I was getting 2mbps nearly 20 years ago!

You seem to be totally unaware that sorting out infrastructure costs lots or money and takes lots of time.

We all want the cheapest that we can get away with but someone has to put the cash up front to buy it, install it and sell it. Unfortunately we dont even make most of the stuff in this country anymore because of the constant downward push on costs.

Once we'd given it all away to the Chinese not only did we become a hostage to fortune but subject to what the rest of what the world wants as well. We aren't masters of our own destiny any more and now with governments getting upset with the likes of Huawei then the pool of available equipment at prices the operators want to pay has reduced significantly, so the speed of upgrade is likely to slow down rather than increase.

Just my opinion you understand but I do think you need to appreciate that it's not as easy as you'd hope

tallmansix

spurdog1 said:

Erm I did say living in a village (and, "no" I don't want virgin cables everywhere, hence why BT). But i wanted to improve on 2.9, and would have preferred 36MB. Hence my info. VFM no, but better than it was.

Fair enough and apologies, my post didn't come across well reading it back this morning! 

matelodave said:

You seem to be totally unaware that sorting out infrastructure costs lots or money and takes lots of time.
........
Just my opinion you understand but I do think you need to appreciate that it's not as easy as you'd hope

Yep, I understand, just see so many posts on this forum with people struggling with broadband speeds and some of my colleagues struggling to work from home with poor connections it frustrates me. The internet has been around for 30 years now, plenty of time to create the infrastructure that is needed. Some companies had the foresight to put future proof networks in place a long time ago, NTL were offering 10 mbps over 15 years ago while BT was still faffing around trying to squeeze 1mbps down the phone line.

Neil_Jones

tallmansix said:

spurdog1 said:

Erm I did say living in a village (and, "no" I don't want virgin cables everywhere, hence why BT). But i wanted to improve on 2.9, and would have preferred 36MB. Hence my info. VFM no, but better than it was.

Fair enough and apologies, my post didn't come across well reading it back this morning! 

matelodave said:

You seem to be totally unaware that sorting out infrastructure costs lots or money and takes lots of time.
........
Just my opinion you understand but I do think you need to appreciate that it's not as easy as you'd hope

Yep, I understand, just see so many posts on this forum with people struggling with broadband speeds and some of my colleagues struggling to work from home with poor connections it frustrates me. The internet has been around for 30 years now, plenty of time to create the infrastructure that is needed. Some companies had the foresight to put future proof networks in place a long time ago, NTL were offering 10 mbps over 15 years ago while BT was still faffing around trying to squeeze 1mbps down the phone line.

You do realise the entire concept of broadband on a BT line had to be bodged into a system that was only ever designed for voice calls?  Consider it fortunate the system was robust enough on the copper lines to provide up to 76Mbps in the end.

The internet as we know it today wasn't even technologically possible when a mass produced telephony system for public use was planned, designed and implemented.  That came along in the 1950s when computers became a thing, more so when "digital telephony" was a thing to reduce costs and increase efficiency, and then when broadband became a thing somebody managed to bodge a solution to allow the broadband and telephone signal to be on the same line without affecting the call side of things.

tallmansix

Neil_Jones said:
You do realise the entire concept of broadband on a BT line had to be bodged into a system that was only ever designed for voice calls?  

Yes, worked for telecoms companies for 2000 - 2007 and had a full understanding of how the network operated and how BT were the one constant blocker for every innovation and attempt to move forward with broadband.

Neil_Jones said:
Consider it fortunate the system was robust enough on the copper lines to provide up to 76Mbps in the end.

I don't agree with that at all, it is unfortunate that we are stuck with 76Mbps - especially when only 1% actually attain that speed.

Most new build houses were still fitted with copper wire up until a few years ago when Ofcom had to step in and make recommendations, even now it is still not mandatory to fit fibre in new builds - this should have been stopped 10 years ago.

We are behind nearly all of Europe in availability of fibre to home, some countries have made outstanding progress:

• 14% of UK
• 53% for France aiming for 80% by 2022
• 75% for Iceland
• 88% for Spain

This is the chart of actual subscribers to FTTH - embarrassing 3rd from the bottom for the UK:


Meanwhile the OP is excited about moving from 2.9 to 6.8 Mbps and a fiver off.

Neil_Jones said:
That came along in the 1950s when computers became a thing, more so when "digital telephony" was a thing to reduce costs and increase efficiency, and then when broadband became a thing somebody managed to bodge a solution to allow the broadband and telephone signal to be on the same line without affecting the call side of things.

Copper wires / 1950's is no excuse, but I do agree it is a bodge.

While BT and Openreach have been faffing around getting a mere 3 million households on fibre, Virgin have been busy ruining pavements up and down the country and already covers 15 million household with a coax offering capable of the decent fibre like speeds.

I never understand why Virgin get such a bashing when they are actually investing customer money in expanding the network far faster than BT / Openreach.

Neil_Jones

Virgin gets the bashing because people don't realise its not as simple to switch around as it is on BT.  Its their own network.  On a BT network you can join provider X, and then shove off to provider Y and all you do is fill out a form and the job is done, all you do is swap the router out.  For Virgin you have to cancel it, serve your notice, maybe get a new BT line put in, activated, then have the broadband on it, and send the Virgin stuff back.

Yes you might get the faster internet speeds on Virgin but there comes a point where a certain speed is essentially a waste of time and money on all providers.  If all you do is look at email and order a delivery from Tesco, pointless having 300Mbps from Virgin.  A standard ADSL connection is more than enough for that.  If you're a family of four and all watch four different programmes on Netflix in UHD at the same time most days, yes 300Mbps may be what you need.

And where I live I can get the full 76Mbps.  But I only pay for the 38.  I don't need any more (and I'm paying practically nothing anyway thanks to retention deals but that's another discussion)

littleboo

tallmansix said:

Neil_Jones said:
You do realise the entire concept of broadband on a BT line had to be bodged into a system that was only ever designed for voice calls?  

Yes, worked for telecoms companies for 2000 - 2007 and had a full understanding of how the network operated and how BT were the one constant blocker for every innovation and attempt to move forward with broadband.

Neil_Jones said:
Consider it fortunate the system was robust enough on the copper lines to provide up to 76Mbps in the end.

I don't agree with that at all, it is unfortunate that we are stuck with 76Mbps - especially when only 1% actually attain that speed.

Most new build houses were still fitted with copper wire up until a few years ago when Ofcom had to step in and make recommendations, even now it is still not mandatory to fit fibre in new builds - this should have been stopped 10 years ago.

We are behind nearly all of Europe in availability of fibre to home, some countries have made outstanding progress:

• 14% of UK
• 53% for France aiming for 80% by 2022
• 75% for Iceland
• 88% for Spain

This is the chart of actual subscribers to FTTH - embarrassing 3rd from the bottom for the UK:


Meanwhile the OP is excited about moving from 2.9 to 6.8 Mbps and a fiver off.

Neil_Jones said:
That came along in the 1950s when computers became a thing, more so when "digital telephony" was a thing to reduce costs and increase efficiency, and then when broadband became a thing somebody managed to bodge a solution to allow the broadband and telephone signal to be on the same line without affecting the call side of things.

Copper wires / 1950's is no excuse, but I do agree it is a bodge.

While BT and Openreach have been faffing around getting a mere 3 million households on fibre, Virgin have been busy ruining pavements up and down the country and already covers 15 million household with a coax offering capable of the decent fibre like speeds.

I never understand why Virgin get such a bashing when they are actually investing customer money in expanding the network far faster than BT / Openreach.

Virgin haven't been busy covering 15 million homes, they are formed from the already installed networks of the many local cable co's who went bust. For a long time, their network expansion was pretty modest until recently, confined mainly to infill. Its only since Project Lightning that they have done any serious network expansion, and that's not as fast as OR, nowhere near. VM have covered an additional 2.4 million homes, OR are currently over 4 million and building at 42,000 homes per week. 

Phadraig4

I don't object for paying for what I expect to get, but I think I was basically conned by BT. I live in a rural part of the West HIghlands and for five years we've had periodic problems with broadband and phone. A couple of years ago, BT suggested I upgrade to Halo 1 Fibre Broadband - I signed-up for the extra cost because the message was that this would solve it. Then I discovered that fibre only runs to the local exchange, which is one mile away. Between it and my house, the signal runs through the countryside on Edwardian copper wire.

I'd appreciate an opinion on this - I'm supposed to be happy with a maximum 14Mbps (which fluctuates down to 6/7Mbps) after being sold Halo 1 Fibre as a solution. I think the "adviser" misled me - it now appears to me that Halo 1 is more about increased support, not better performance. I could accept a dependable 14Mbps but I'm paying for a package that delivers 50Mbps to other customers, whilst enduring regular drop-outs when we have heavy rain. I'd have thought that selling me a fibre "improvement" that has effectively changed nothing would be perceived as misleading by Ofcom or Trading Standards - but am I missing something? Trying to get to the bottom of this with their "advisers" is like drawing teeth.

JJ_Egan

(hen I discovered that fibre only runs to the local exchange, which is one mile away. Between it and my house, the signal runs through the countryside on Edwardian copper wire

 

Yes that's normal fibre to the cabinet then copper wire to the home .Speed depends upon distance from cabinet and quality of wiring . Your internal household wiring to router can also play a part .

Speed etc must be measured over Ethernet connection not wifi .

Halo is essentially wifi with an EE mobile network backup .It cannot increase the external speed .