BT bungs £1.5 billion into better broadband
BT HAS OFFERED to invest £1.5bn into an upgrade to broadband lines in the UK, but not without caveats.
This would enable 40 per cent of homes to receive fibre, in some capacity, by 2012.
BT has said customers would achieve broadband speeds of up-to 100Mb/s with the potential for speeds of more than 1,000Mb/s in the future.
However, British Telecom has made clear it will only make the move if regulator Ofcom allows it to get a decent return on the company's investment.
In order to pay for the project BT has said it will suspend its £2.5bn share buy-back programme in July, giving it a £1.8bn war-chest.
BT chief executive Ian Livingston said, "A supportive and enduring regulatory environment is essential if this investment is to take place. Given this, BT will be discussing with Ofcom the conditions that would be necessary to enable this programme to progress. These include removing current barriers to investment and making sure that anyone who chooses to invest in fibre can earn a fair rate of return for their shareholders."
Which basically means that BT do not want competiting companies using the newly installed pipes.
Also, only new-build homes will receive fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), whilst fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) will be generally used elsewhere, meaning a proportion of the last few yards will still be based on copper wire.
FTTC customers will received between 40Mb/s and 60Mb/s.
No word on which areas will be covered, but considering the figures we suspect the largest UK cities will probably be the only residential areas targeted.
You can view the BT press release here. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
What the hell is this piece?, biggest pile of half truths and nonsense i've read since charlie looked at the NV2x0 GPU.

Anybody and everybody knows that either a large telecoms company pays for FTTx and is allowed to make a return on that investment, or the taxpayer pays. No other solution.

What BT are saying is we'll do it, but for the cost we want to make some money, if Mr OFCOM you want FTTx as you claim, let us make some money from doing that.

Dont know why you are being so hostile/negative towards BT, unless your a damn commie, LOL
Why shouldn't BT be entitled to get back the money that they will invest, and more on top (typically 10x ROI)? That's how such things operate!

Why should they pay billions to install a FTTC network and then be forced to sell access on that network for a pittance that might not even repay the investment over several years? All they want is to be able to charge the resellers a fair monthly rate.

Remember that the money could be better spent elsewhere instead. You'd better hope the ROI would beat out having the money in a decent savings account at the very least :)
How do you value an entity that necessitates the resources of a nation to develop and nuture? In the eyes of that most dangerous of species, why, “It’s merely business, dear boy”, and may the good times roll, they salivate. Which is more dangerous and a threat to the rest: a rock, a tree, an animal, a partial-animal [a;so known as partial-human], or a realised human? When an animal is able to think or when a human is animalistic, he has no limits for he has no satisfaction/morality. As the philosopher witnessed, the stupid and the truly intelligent are not your problem. It’s those who think that they are either or both who destabilises.

BT, a monopoly, was peddled-off by that most dangerous of partial-human, a politico who seldom thinks thrice when venting might. Wasn’t the aim of the sale to promote accountability through competition? Centralised power, “growth” that has little roots in reality, can only be so if you are The Source for then, a mistake is never possible otherwise, you will not be able to create [energy] in the first instance. So, partial-humans come and go but the devastation/principle/pheromone they leave behind serves only to destroy. Size equates Stability/Roots/Gravity/Magnetism and not achievements/vested-interests or else justification is all there is. Even when She seemingly takes thousands through “natural” disasters, Nature never justifies for She never makes a single mistake. You only justify to cover-up a mistake, not redress it. Justification’s aim is to elicit humility, not relinquish it for only divinity has no humility. Only those who have no guilt/error have no [need for] humility. The rest need humiliation to recover theirs. Upside-down is when immorality/those-who-have-no-roots exudes logic. Like, “We are big enough to say ‘no’ to competition”. The gene/roots behind a mongrel is more of the same.