BT and the Big Lie

Today's announcement about BET perpetuates more than one Big Lie, and sadly many will believe that this is "job done" for long lines.

Let's keep banging on about this until we get it, shall we?

In 1984, broadband was defined as a service that was capable of simultaneous transmission and receiving of voice, video and data. We have allowed commercial entities the opportunity (often through ignorance and a failure to listen to experts, grassroots and consumers) to lower that bar to the point where this country now lags behind in the information and knowledge economies.

Even in 2009, 1Mbps asymmetrical is NOT broadband and it is utterly useless for bringing 21st century communications to rural citizens and businesses of this country. It is certainly not what an experienced telco should be offering as a solution for the current notspot problem, when it has been so clearly illustrated where the eNdGAme is, and which other countries are now actively pursuing. Further, bonding lines in areas where there is already a shortage of phone lines is not an option.

The notspot problem needs solving. It does not need brushing under the carpet with offers by BT to tackle long lines with an obsolete solution. Should this type of announcement convince the powers that be that the "problem is solved", then many rural areas of this country are going to go downhill faster than we can begin to imagine.

This announcement could well affect current and future funding pots which have been and will be brought into existence to encourage innovation and to solve rural broadband issues with exciting and future-proof solutions. By allowing a corporate to dictate what happens by setting a glass ceiling that affects every rural business and citizen, we are potentially permitting a form of digital ethnic cleansing.

It seems very difficult to get this nation to understand what broadband really is, and what it gives access to. Once again, we seem apathetic towards seeking solutions that solve the problems that our digital exclusion from the broadband world are bringing to us all, day in and day out. If we allow a corporate to continually define what rural broadband is, the only people who suffer are "US". BT's profits will continue to rise whilst the country as a whole struggles to engage in the 21st century. Our citizens cannot access health and education services that others now take for granted. Our businesses are failing to deliver competitive services that will regenerate and re-invigorate our economy. Our public sector cannot do its job, either optimally or cost-effectively. Our environmental footprint is far higher than it need be because we cannot video conference, avoid excessive travel through use of technology, and we are using ADSL (and allowing its continued use) which has a far higher carbon impact than FTTH.

Enough is enough. Let BT offer BET and similar services, but it should be made clear to everyone that this is a solution purely for BT's ends. And it must NOT be at the cost of helping communities, councils, and other companies bypassing the olden days and ways of the incumbent to bring true broadband to this country.

Also posted on 5tth.blogspot.com

Comments on this post

Add your comment

Your response to "BT and the Big Lie":

1. At 15 Sep 2009 19:58, mike kiely wrote:

These ADSL loop extenders are used all over the place, China, rural South Korea.

Just a reasonable way to fill a gap to create some connectivity, part of a jigsaw.

Digital Britain is just adding some forensic investments, nothing strategic.

Ranting against anything which is not FTTH is not how the case for public investment will be made. All connectivity is good and should be applauded but I do not see how this could be confused with a strategic national decision to replace the local loop. The latter needs national goals on carbon reduction, health care delivery and plans for rural re-generation to underwrite the change.

The election is coming, it is good time to make a case to one of the three parties to adopt a re-wiring Britain project. How many marginal seats can be delivered on this issue?
2. At 15 Sep 2009 23:46, Lindsey Annison wrote:

Well, as you are, I am sure aware, many have previously blogged/written/argued for and about making broadband an election issue, and not just in this election. This will be the second election now I personally have been involved in on this cause and for some it is more.

Whilst potentially agreeing that there **could** be some use of the copper first mile/sub loop, I do not believe it should be as a first choice broadband solution, whether as a stopgap or otherwise. And it should not be in the hands of the incumbent to deliver into rural communities they have till now shown little interest in or concern over.

It might be worth visiting those in rural South Korea and see how they feel about their connectivity over copper, discovering the reality of their access to 100Mbps+ symmetrical in a nearby town, from neighbours etc, and re-assessing whether it is a valid option.

There will undoubtedly always be people who have single track roads / limited connectivity, but that doesn't mean we should deliberately build that limitation into our national network by permitting BT to request funding for this impoverished solution.

And yes, Mike, some of us will continue 'ranting' against commecially driven thinking that drags this country backwards until we can run our businesses and let our children enjoy the benefits of the Internet without having to relocate to another country. I and others have done it for well over a decade, with some measure of success, and will continue to do so. Luckily, it has often been translated into action, which has changed how the commercial properties deliver, and that will also continue.
3. At 18 Sep 2009 11:08, mike kiely wrote:

Fair enough and I applaud your effort and commitment.

I doubt anyone thinks boosting the signal in this manner somehow fixes a problem but it will do something for some, and will only wet their appetite for even better connectivity.

I am not sure how many pence is needed on a bottle of booze, or on a litre of petrol to create a re-wire britain project, but I think the debate would be served well, if a consensus could be created around a money raising idea.

Keep up the effort. My particular issue with BT/Ofcom/BIS is that the possibilities of our connectivity, is being restricted by a desire to perserve existing legacy services and the regulatory silos that support them. This will be very evident in the COTS discussion, where Fibre islands will be expected to use interconnect and bandwidth designed for these historic silos. How do we make the evolutionary jump from peak hour bandwidth allocations of 30Kbps per user which is what we all get today to a number which must be 16-20 times that if fiber is to be fully utilised.
4. At 18 Sep 2009 16:11, Lindsey Annison wrote:

All that is actually required is one month's UK spending at current levels to drag this country out of the broadband mire it is floundering in and set it up for the next 30+ years with future-proofed, advanced infrastructure. Today's announcement that our beloved Treasury is currently spending £16Bn a month to seemingly take us ever deeper into debt should give pause for thought.

This sort of figure would seemingly give FTTH to every home in the UK except the very, very remote properties. (It might actually also cover those too as I have just unearthed figures showing a spend of under 600 euros per home in a deeply remote community in EU which would substantially reduce the estimate for UK wide FTTH).

How much of our spending last month went on public sector pensions and wages? Give them all a month off to help dig and we would be half way there!