UKVoIPTalk.com

<melonite@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179428062.803954.196120@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> If you use ADSL, most likely you are a BT or Kingston Telecom
> customer, and therefore still have to pay your telephone line rental
> to either of the respective telecom providers.
>
> On the prime ministers website a petition has been created to petition
> the prime minister to try and place some pressure on the telecom
> providers in the UK to make them drop the requirement to have to pay
> telephone line rental.
>
> The reasons is, BT and KT call charges are way over priced if you
> compare to VoIP, the call quality is not that different either, so why
> should we pay line rental for a service we have no intention on using
> for voice calls, when all we need the BT or KT line for is simply to
> have ADSL Broadband?
>
> If you support this then please feel free to sign the petition which
> can be found at [url]http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NakedADSL/[/url]
>
> Also feel free to pass this petition URL to your friends, family and
> colleagues.
>
> With Thanks
>[/color]


Hi,


I think this is a very fair and good point.

Whilst it is equally, to an order (say 50% of current line rental costs),
fair to say that lines cost money to install, maintain and repair, etc. and
hence current line rental costs are fair (and yes BT and others will argue
that they lose money based on line rental alone), I think on balance...

The reality is that that is Bu***t... as I say I will give a large and
healthy spoonful of disbelief / benefit of the doubt, and accept that 50% of
current BT line rental rates might be fair / reasonable.

However, look at everywhere else in the world, and don't allow yourself to
buy into, pander to or be suckered into the "UK" X inefficiency bullpap,
where enough (half?) the population (or more) allow themselves to accept and
believe a self-fulfilling prophecy of cost, margin and profit rates that
bites everyone in the butt except those who have a vested interest. It
really is a false economy (to allow yourself to be suckered in / sell your
soul to the misguided "UK" X inefficiency camp - higher costs, lower output,
etc. and all believed as necessary / reality, etc.!). If others in the world
can do an order of magnitudes better so can we.

Further, get an accountant to have to pay the bills with the correct
incentivisation (i.e. on the right side - to optimise and make the product /
service cheap rather than expensive) and they will happily provide 20
million people in this country with a line service for equivalent rental of
£5 per month. (read and note further to this / in addition to this - THESE
LINES HAVE NOT DEPRECIATED YET!). What do you think is the life of a line?
What do you think is the write down rate claimed by BT et al. against these
assets, costs and revenues? As I say ignore that, and the rest of the world
can do it, include that and any properly terms of reference instructed
accountant will conclude the same.


Best wishes,



News Reader


P.s. ... and good luck with the petition. etc. :)

"News Reader" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:f2inup$ouh$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
[color=blue]
>
> Whilst it is equally, to an order (say 50% of current line rental costs),
> fair to say that lines cost money to install, maintain and repair, etc.
> and
> hence current line rental costs are fair (and yes BT and others will argue
> that they lose money based on line rental alone), I think on balance...
>
> The reality is that that is Bu***t... as I say I will give a large and
> healthy spoonful of disbelief / benefit of the doubt, and accept that 50%
> of
> current BT line rental rates might be fair / reasonable.[/color]

If you believe this why don't you become a billionaire by installing lines
and supplying broadband at half the price of BT then?

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f2jod5$f1n$1@news.datemas.de...[color=blue]
>
> "News Reader" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f2inup$ouh$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>[color=green]
>>
>> Whilst it is equally, to an order (say 50% of current line rental costs),
>> fair to say that lines cost money to install, maintain and repair, etc.
>> and
>> hence current line rental costs are fair (and yes BT and others will
>> argue
>> that they lose money based on line rental alone), I think on balance...
>>
>> The reality is that that is Bu***t... as I say I will give a large and
>> healthy spoonful of disbelief / benefit of the doubt, and accept that 50%
>> of
>> current BT line rental rates might be fair / reasonable.[/color]
>
> If you believe this why don't you become a billionaire by installing lines
> and supplying broadband at half the price of BT then?
>
>
>[/color]


Hi,


I think the trick here is that you become a relatively low level millionaire
rather than billionaire and avoid excessive return to the top of the
organisation - only what is necessary / reasonable.

It sounds like you have more of the necessary enthusiasm, gumption, etc. :)
(something tells me this would probably be something of a pretty large
job! - lol).


Best wishes,



News Reader


P.s. We could always leave it another 50, 100, 250 years and see the reality
of the statistics on long-term costs etc., depreciation on these assets and
probably then enjoy BT telling us how much it costs to maintain fibre
instead.

"News Reader" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:f2k15f$h98$1@inews.gazeta.pl...[color=blue]
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
> news:f2jod5$f1n$1@news.datemas.de...[color=green]
>>
>> "News Reader" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f2inup$ouh$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Whilst it is equally, to an order (say 50% of current line rental
>>> costs),
>>> fair to say that lines cost money to install, maintain and repair, etc.
>>> and
>>> hence current line rental costs are fair (and yes BT and others will
>>> argue
>>> that they lose money based on line rental alone), I think on balance...
>>>
>>> The reality is that that is Bu***t... as I say I will give a large and
>>> healthy spoonful of disbelief / benefit of the doubt, and accept that
>>> 50% of
>>> current BT line rental rates might be fair / reasonable.[/color]
>>
>> If you believe this why don't you become a billionaire by installing
>> lines and supplying broadband at half the price of BT then?
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I think the trick here is that you become a relatively low level
> millionaire rather than billionaire and avoid excessive return to the top
> of the organisation - only what is necessary / reasonable.
>
> It sounds like you have more of the necessary enthusiasm, gumption, etc.
> :) (something tells me this would probably be something of a pretty large
> job! - lol).
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> News Reader
>
>
> P.s. We could always leave it another 50, 100, 250 years and see the
> reality of the statistics on long-term costs etc., depreciation on these
> assets and probably then enjoy BT telling us how much it costs to maintain
> fibre instead.
>
>
>[/color]


Hi,


A further / side thought. Let's wait and see.

The argument of the "it costs this much" line of thinking, concludes that
line rentals must go up in coming years as BT face reducing revenue from
associated products / services (from their traditional monopoly areas as
less and less telephony revenue comes in and competition in the data access
service market eats at any legacy monopoly benefit sales in those areas) and
so less revenue is available to use to subsidise line rental.

I think the reality will be that line rentals or their equivalents over the
next 10, 20, 50 years will decline significantly with near ubiquity of
access options to data services (which is all that counts or matters
really - now and increasingly in the future I would hazard) and with the
real issue or question being cost of data transfer. I.e. with wireless,
fibre, power line, etc.

Further, one can consider the comparators of utility service facilities such
as BT's copper pair, namely gas pipes, electricity supplies, water pipes,
etc. I think that starts to turn a certain enquiring eye on someone's
counting somewhere?


Best wishes,



News Reader

In uk.telecom.broadband News Reader <no@email.invalid> wrote:

: A further / side thought. Let's wait and see.

: The argument of the "it costs this much" line of thinking, concludes that
: line rentals must go up in coming years as BT face reducing revenue from
: associated products / services (from their traditional monopoly areas as
: less and less telephony revenue comes in and competition in the data access
: service market eats at any legacy monopoly benefit sales in those areas) and
: so less revenue is available to use to subsidise line rental.

I think that this has already happened!

"Line rentals" in the USA were reported to be around the 3 pounds/month
level at one time as I recall - this would seem to me to be a more
reasonable cost for the maintenance of the copper to the exchange.

BT have, I believe, insisted on including all their infrastructure costs
within the "line rental" here. Also, as now, when profits on calls are
neglible there is a suspicion that they have inflated this to as high a level
as OFCOM will allow to give the maximum level of "base income".

That would seem to give the possibility of a "low line rental for ADSL only
when the ISP uses their own LLU equipment" ... but I bet this will not be
at all popular with BT!!!!

Brian McIlwrath wrote:
[color=blue]
> In uk.telecom.broadband News Reader <no@email.invalid> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> "Line rentals" in the USA were reported to be around the 3
> pounds/month level at one time as I recall - this would seem to me to
> be a more reasonable cost for the maintenance of the copper to the
> exchange.[/color]

It would seem you recall wrongly. AT&T charge around $26 per month including
local calls. The local call area is often much smaller than the UK as well.

Peter Crosland

In uk.telecom.broadband Peter Crosland <g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

: It would seem you recall wrongly. AT&T charge around $26 per month including
: local calls. The local call area is often much smaller than the UK as well.

Possibly - but a single (bundled) example does not disprove anything!

The main point of my argument - that LLU operators should have a line rental
option for DSL only which includes NONE of BTs infrastructure costs (such
as 21CN) - would seem to still apply!

Brian McIlwrath wrote:[color=blue]
> In uk.telecom.broadband Peter Crosland <g6jns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It would seem you recall wrongly. AT&T charge around $26 per month
>> including local calls. The local call area is often much smaller
>> than the UK as well.[/color]
>
> Possibly - but a single (bundled) example does not disprove anything![/color]

What I was saying was that the AT&T charge of around £13 per month was
typical of US rates whereas you were saying it was £3. Your assertion of
the comparative cost was simply wrong by a factor of five. In other words
you argument was meaningless.
[color=blue]
> The main point of my argument - that LLU operators should have a line
> rental option for DSL only which includes NONE of BTs infrastructure
> costs (such as 21CN) - would seem to still apply![/color]

The line rental, effectively capped by OFCOM, was determined long before
21CN even started. The costs of the local loop to the subscriber will still
be there even after 21CN is implemented.

Peter Crosland

On 18 May, 00:20, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> However, look at everywhere else in the world[/color]

go on then , precisely where has free telephone lines available for
carrying ADSL ?

Phil

"PhilT" <newsnet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179819990.764519.292990@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> On 18 May, 00:20, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> However, look at everywhere else in the world[/color]
>
> go on then , precisely where has free telephone lines available for
> carrying ADSL ?
>
> Phil
>[/color]


Hi,


As much as I don't mind, I ought to remind you that I was not championing
such a cause, I was cautioning the region of 50% current rates as being an
important reality to consider (i.e. financial reality - rather than [see my
original posts] excess "profit" payback of present rates in this country).
(Not true, incidentally as an example of one pioneer / demonstrator, of
TalkTalk).


Best wishes,



News Reader


P.s. Please see my original posts re: uk X-Inefficiency etc. - I repeatedly
reference something solid - namely accounting methods, etc. (i.e. counting
things!!! - no one here expecting the world for nothing!) . :)