Comments on: Crumbling Britain: telecoms http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/ Conservative Party Candidate for Wokingham Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:58:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DiscoveredJoys http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23209 DiscoveredJoys Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:33:05 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23209 It's always good fun to prod and pick at BT, but you should ask yourself how much of their energy is sapped by having to maintain legacy systems and provide universal access. I don't see Virgin laying co-ax to remote villages or the poorest areas of town. It’s always good fun to prod and pick at BT, but you should ask yourself how much of their energy is sapped by having to maintain legacy systems and provide universal access. I don’t see Virgin laying co-ax to remote villages or the poorest areas of town.

]]> By: Jock http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23204 Jock Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:53:59 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23204 ...or even <a href="http://wirelessoxford.org/" rel="nofollow">"unwired for success"</a> John! …or even “unwired for success” John!

]]> By: Alfred T Mahan http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23194 Alfred T Mahan Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:28:36 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23194 The one aspect of the old system you've tactfully not commented on was its corruption. Like you, I was in the City before BT was privatised. My firm (with about 200 staff) moved offices by about 150 yards, and the week before the move the BT engineer in charge told us it was out of the question for the lines to be in place in time. He was after some "extra overtime payments", otherwise it would be six weeks before the work could be scheduled. We depended entirely on telephones and telex lines for our business, so this was alarming. Over the next weekend, a junior BT technician who clearly wasn't in the gang happened to be on site, saw two wires disconnected, and voila! Two minutes later, everything worked. With no incentive as a monopolist to provide a competitive service, BT and its staff looked after themselves first. The one aspect of the old system you’ve tactfully not commented on was its corruption. Like you, I was in the City before BT was privatised. My firm (with about 200 staff) moved offices by about 150 yards, and the week before the move the BT engineer in charge told us it was out of the question for the lines to be in place in time. He was after some “extra overtime payments”, otherwise it would be six weeks before the work could be scheduled. We depended entirely on telephones and telex lines for our business, so this was alarming. Over the next weekend, a junior BT technician who clearly wasn’t in the gang happened to be on site, saw two wires disconnected, and voila! Two minutes later, everything worked.

With no incentive as a monopolist to provide a competitive service, BT and its staff looked after themselves first.

]]> By: BrianSJ http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23193 BrianSJ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:22:32 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23193 Usual excellent material. Freeborn John forgot to include the word google in his discussion of global scale monopoly. They really do appear to own an awful lot of the infrastructure, and to have done so very quietly. The regulator does need a look; UK ISPs have got themselves into a very unenviable position, which is to BTs long term advantage. The decision by Ofcom not to consider quality of service, but to leave it to the market was a mistake. Usual excellent material.
Freeborn John forgot to include the word google in his discussion of global scale monopoly. They really do appear to own an awful lot of the infrastructure, and to have done so very quietly.
The regulator does need a look; UK ISPs have got themselves into a very unenviable position, which is to BTs long term advantage. The decision by Ofcom not to consider quality of service, but to leave it to the market was a mistake.

]]> By: Johnny Norfolk http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23192 Johnny Norfolk Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:05:36 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23192 I still think BT still acts like it used to, It is high handed and should not have any monoply anywhere, its the only way to change their attitude. I still think BT still acts like it used to, It is high handed and should not have any monoply anywhere, its the only way to change their attitude.

]]> By: no one http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23191 no one Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:43:46 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23191 oh and "Meanwhile BT is excluded from mobile telephony" hey they sold O2, their business decisions their problem over regulated? poorly regulated more like, and too many incestious relationships where many of the regulator staff are ex-BT and too many BT staff are ex-regulator, etc, much of the stuff imposed by the regulator is not really checked in the detailed substance of how it is implemented in the network and IT as the regulator just doesnt have the tech staff to do sensible audits - they by and large trust BTs word, and there are many interpretations of the ever changing rules possible oh and

“Meanwhile BT is excluded from mobile telephony” hey they sold O2, their business decisions their problem

over regulated? poorly regulated more like, and too many incestious relationships where many of the regulator staff are ex-BT and too many BT staff are ex-regulator, etc, much of the stuff imposed by the regulator is not really checked in the detailed substance of how it is implemented in the network and IT as the regulator just doesnt have the tech staff to do sensible audits – they by and large trust BTs word, and there are many interpretations of the ever changing rules possible

]]> By: no one http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23190 no one Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:37:06 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23190 yes BT is still too big, and should have been split into smaller chunks Openreach should be forced to demerge from BT BT should not be allowed to cross subsidise its IT services business (and other businesses) with bank roll from telco BT should not be allowed to offshore so much of its work to India stopping the training of UK junior tech staff, In fact BT should be smashed into a 100 smaller companies Yes the UK needs fibre optic cables to homes, copper wire will never be able to cope with the ongoing expansion of bandwidth demands, we are already pushing the boundary of copper to the limit In the same way we need mechanisms to force 3G mobile data comms prices down, the current price per unit of data is nonsense, and does not reflect the cost structure of the industry, we need real mechanisms to force 3G data providers to offer unlimited data volumes for a realistic and ever downwards monthly fee Public sector use of internet? depends what you mean? more centralised mao china style IT projects like the NHS is not the way to build proper incentives and balances into the system Neither is the stuff the BBC is allowed to do with the internet riding rough shod through private sector education and journalistic providers, subsidised by the tax payer, I dont actually believe the BBC has any role providing web based education matierial to schools wiping out good competition from the free market Oh yea and Vodafone et al are not really the best mobile telcos by world standards, clever business decisions, pretty bad technical decisions Notice John you never seem to mention the amount of over staffing in the public sector, and the appauling service the people get, the NHS really is so sub standard compared to the rest of the developed world the conservatives really need to set the staff and patients free http://notdrrant.blogspot.com/ yes

BT is still too big, and should have been split into smaller chunks

Openreach should be forced to demerge from BT

BT should not be allowed to cross subsidise its IT services business (and other businesses) with bank roll from telco

BT should not be allowed to offshore so much of its work to India stopping the training of UK junior tech staff, In fact BT should be smashed into a 100 smaller companies

Yes the UK needs fibre optic cables to homes, copper wire will never be able to cope with the ongoing expansion of bandwidth demands, we are already pushing the boundary of copper to the limit

In the same way we need mechanisms to force 3G mobile data comms prices down, the current price per unit of data is nonsense, and does not reflect the cost structure of the industry, we need real mechanisms to force 3G data providers to offer unlimited data volumes for a realistic and ever downwards monthly fee

Public sector use of internet? depends what you mean? more centralised mao china style IT projects like the NHS is not the way to build proper incentives and balances into the system

Neither is the stuff the BBC is allowed to do with the internet riding rough shod through private sector education and journalistic providers, subsidised by the tax payer, I dont actually believe the BBC has any role providing web based education matierial to schools wiping out good competition from the free market

Oh yea and Vodafone et al are not really the best mobile telcos by world standards, clever business decisions, pretty bad technical decisions
Notice John you never seem to mention the amount of over staffing in the public sector, and the appauling service the people get, the NHS really is so sub standard compared to the rest of the developed world the conservatives really need to set the staff and patients free

http://notdrrant.blogspot.com/

]]> By: mikestallard http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23189 mikestallard Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:29:31 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23189 My mother of 97 couldn't believe that she was actually talking to her granddaughter in Australia on Skype. She spoke loudly as if on long distance and kept trying to end the converstation because she thought that calling that long distance "was costing you a packet." That shows how much things have got better in our lifetime. You are quite right about better telecommunications being necessary, though. The internet reminds me of the motorways when they began to clog up. The big question is this: is the fantastic improvement in telecommunications simply due to the government leaving it alone to prosper? My mother of 97 couldn’t believe that she was actually talking to her granddaughter in Australia on Skype. She spoke loudly as if on long distance and kept trying to end the converstation because she thought that calling that long distance “was costing you a packet.” That shows how much things have got better in our lifetime.
You are quite right about better telecommunications being necessary, though. The internet reminds me of the motorways when they began to clog up.
The big question is this: is the fantastic improvement in telecommunications simply due to the government leaving it alone to prosper?

]]> By: Wrinlkled Weasel http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23188 Wrinlkled Weasel Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:35:14 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23188 Spot on with the "crumbling" series. Telecoms? mmm. BT is one of the slowest Broadband providers in Europe. You get nowhere near their published speeds, which are crap anyway compared to anywhere else. And they spy on you with "Phorm", which they don't tell you about but which nevertheless monitors your surfing habits in order to direct advertising to you. So you be getting some interesting spam soon if you are with BT. Spot on with the “crumbling” series. Telecoms? mmm. BT is one of the slowest Broadband providers in Europe. You get nowhere near their published speeds, which are crap anyway compared to anywhere else. And they spy on you with “Phorm”, which they don’t tell you about but which nevertheless monitors your surfing habits in order to direct advertising to you. So you be getting some interesting spam soon if you are with BT.

]]> By: Freeborn John http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23187 Freeborn John Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:09:12 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23187 Service providers (e.g. Vodafone, rather than BT) in countries like the UK which were towards the head of the liberalisation trend benefited by applying the early experience they gained in the liberalised UK market to outwit incumbents in late-to-deregulate overseas markets and rise to become global players. However the story for British equipment suppliers (e.g. GEC & Plessey) that were dependent on BT is less rosy as they suffered badly when the new service providers looked to overseas companies (e.g. Ericsson, etc.) to provide their equipment needs for new mobile and data services. Equipment suppliers in late to de-regulate countries (e.g. France, Japan) had more time to adjust but in many cases it did not prevent them losing international market share either as a few companies in dynamic sectors (e.g. Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco, Nortel etc.) emerged as genuine global players in advanced equipment for mobile and data networks. The former suppliers to the ex-monopoly phone companies (e.g. Alcatel to FT, Siemens to DT, Fujistu & NEC to NTT, etc.) have struggled badly to keep any business other than the basic ‘bit-carrying’ transport products. The only new player on the scene is Huawei (from China) which competes on price. This transformation of telecoms means that the state regulator should arguably be more concerned now about possible monopoly formation in telecoms equipment supply than in service provision as each new generation of technology seems to involve fewer players competing for a worldwide market. Arguably Skype or Yahoo/Microsoft Instant Messenger are better placed to dominate the future of telephony than BT is. The ability of individual state regulators to prevent the emergence of Microsoft-style monopolies in new technologies seems doubtful. However, for the time being, I would say that telecoms really is a free market with carriers able to count on multiple suppliers in all parts of their networks and not much need for state regulation other than of the BT local loop. The fate of GEC & Plessey should however provide lessons to be applied when liberalising other sectors (defence? broadcasting?) in the future. Alcatel expanded internationally before de-regulation in France through acquisition of similar companies in Europe and the USA (e.g. Lucent in the US, ITT in Germany and many others). This gave it a larger market for its products and was I feel important in Alcatel (in stark contrast to its British peers) surviving and prospering despite its home market being neither a technology nor liberalisation trend-setter. We are seeing French suppliers of nuclear technology following the same strategy today. One lesson from telecoms should be that British suppliers to UK state-owned defence, broadcasting, energy, water, etc. industries should be encouraged by the state to aggressively broaden their customer base internationally before having to face de-regulation at home. Otherwise liberalisation is likely to see our services improve but our technology base erode. Service providers (e.g. Vodafone, rather than BT) in countries like the UK which were towards the head of the liberalisation trend benefited by applying the early experience they gained in the liberalised UK market to outwit incumbents in late-to-deregulate overseas markets and rise to become global players. However the story for British equipment suppliers (e.g. GEC & Plessey) that were dependent on BT is less rosy as they suffered badly when the new service providers looked to overseas companies (e.g. Ericsson, etc.) to provide their equipment needs for new mobile and data services. Equipment suppliers in late to de-regulate countries (e.g. France, Japan) had more time to adjust but in many cases it did not prevent them losing international market share either as a few companies in dynamic sectors (e.g. Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco, Nortel etc.) emerged as genuine global players in advanced equipment for mobile and data networks. The former suppliers to the ex-monopoly phone companies (e.g. Alcatel to FT, Siemens to DT, Fujistu & NEC to NTT, etc.) have struggled badly to keep any business other than the basic ‘bit-carrying’ transport products. The only new player on the scene is Huawei (from China) which competes on price. This transformation of telecoms means that the state regulator should arguably be more concerned now about possible monopoly formation in telecoms equipment supply than in service provision as each new generation of technology seems to involve fewer players competing for a worldwide market. Arguably Skype or Yahoo/Microsoft Instant Messenger are better placed to dominate the future of telephony than BT is. The ability of individual state regulators to prevent the emergence of Microsoft-style monopolies in new technologies seems doubtful. However, for the time being, I would say that telecoms really is a free market with carriers able to count on multiple suppliers in all parts of their networks and not much need for state regulation other than of the BT local loop.

The fate of GEC & Plessey should however provide lessons to be applied when liberalising other sectors (defence? broadcasting?) in the future. Alcatel expanded internationally before de-regulation in France through acquisition of similar companies in Europe and the USA (e.g. Lucent in the US, ITT in Germany and many others). This gave it a larger market for its products and was I feel important in Alcatel (in stark contrast to its British peers) surviving and prospering despite its home market being neither a technology nor liberalisation trend-setter. We are seeing French suppliers of nuclear technology following the same strategy today. One lesson from telecoms should be that British suppliers to UK state-owned defence, broadcasting, energy, water, etc. industries should be encouraged by the state to aggressively broaden their customer base internationally before having to face de-regulation at home. Otherwise liberalisation is likely to see our services improve but our technology base erode.

]]> By: Neil Craig http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/08/07/cumbling-britain-telecoms/#comment-23175 Neil Craig Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:43:05 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1255#comment-23175 A good personal anecdote John. Without these improvements it would have been impossible for the UK's financial services industry to have maintained its position let alone grown to be pretty much world leader, to the very considerable disadvantage to the UK economy. A good example of how progress in one industry not merely benefits that industry but has spin offs to many others. Or how preventing progress in one industry has the opposite effect. A good personal anecdote John. Without these improvements it would have been impossible for the UK’s financial services industry to have maintained its position let alone grown to be pretty much world leader, to the very considerable disadvantage to the UK economy.

A good example of how progress in one industry not merely benefits that industry but has spin offs to many others. Or how preventing progress in one industry has the opposite effect.

]]>