Residential Refresh 2014 FAQ

[#1]

Download speeds and it is the first result

[#2]

Thanks Jim, I'll get this flagged with the Marketing team!

[#3]

My exchange is coming up as Market 1, but EE, Sky and UTV, as well as BT are all willing to take my money.
So how accurate are PN's records for Market 1 areas?
Also with regard to fibre options, is PN relying on the test results from: https://www.dslchecker.bt.com/ ?
If you are and say you can give me even 60% of that estimate, I'll sign up now. 

[#4]

If someone on a Market 1 exchange gets an NGA installed surely they are no longer M1? Due to the choice of provider?

[#5]

Markets don't change that quickly, they are reclassified by Ofcom on a periodic basis.
adie:quote

[#6]

Agreed. My dads exchange is still market 1 but there are now 3 providers on there and will be fibre also soon
OFCON are just a waste of oxygen

[#7]

Quote from: Linn

I understand what you're saying Mike, however, my point was more based on a customer who is in Market 1 would pay more regardless if it was ADSL or FTTC.

I never understood why Market 1 have to pay more. Surely it would make more sense to make Market 1 cheaper to encourage the competition to install their equipment in the exchanges?
Or am I missing something?

[#8]

You have got it totally back to front.
It costs a lot of money to install LLU equipment in an exchange
To encourage operators into market 1 exchanges you need to ensure they can charge MORE to customers.
Furthermore you need to ensure the ability to charge more lasts for a considerable amount of time after they have installed their equipment.
That way the operators will have a financial incentive to go into an mk1 exchange knowing that they will be guaranteed 'excess' profits both now and until the next exchange re-evaluation by OFCOM.
This is to compensate them for their up-front capital expenses in installing the equipment in the first place.
This is why OFCOM only re-evaluate exchanges on a periodic basis usually every 3 years or so....to give the new operator time though the higher charges they make to their subscribers to re-coup their capital investment.
If an exchange was re-classified immediately LLU operators arrived the incentive for them to go there in the first place would have been removed - so those who call for this to happen do not understand the reason for the market classification. - it is essential as part of the scheme that this re-evaluation only occurs at lengthy intervals.

No, OFCOM are not a waste of oxygen as the other poster suggested.

[#9]

Higher charges should only apply to exchanges with no competition and above 8MB speeds. On the small exchanges the existing scheme doesn't work. No amount of price differential will induce the LLU operators to install as they will never recoup the costs and there's no incentive for BT to upgrade to 21CN.
BT should be forced to charge LESS for 20CN only exchanges where there is no LLU. If they have no intention of upgrading to 21CN that might make them look more favourably on letting LLU operators install their equipment.

[#10]

Jelv,
As I've suggested before, speed based charging is the only way to get BTOR to fix their infrastructure.  25p per month per Mbps across all services.  The more you get the more you pay and you don't pay for what you can't get.
Everyone has to have a dream!

[#11]

Yep +1 to that. I have argued the same for a long time.

[#12]

Can anyone justify them being allowed to continue to charge higher prices for FTTC when they have been given BDUK funding to introduce the capability to the exchange?

[#13]

Well BT are putting money in to each BDUK FTTC upgrade as well as HMG/local councils.

[#14]

Jelv,
Would it be correct to say the BDUK funding does not cover 100% of the cost or 100% of the UK?
I would not be happy seeing fibre sold cheaper than ADSL until decent fibre is available to everyone.  I'm not happy paying the same price for 5Mbps as someone else who gets 20+Mbps - however I have to accept that is the way things are.

[#15]

Re: Speed based charging
Be careful what you wish for!  Going down this route could make many lines uneconomic to provide broadband and services could be denied/withdrawn.  Alternatively the price per Mb/s could be set at something considerably higher than 25p making fast broadband unaffordable.