BT phone line/service 'upgrade'

[JohnW2]

Unlikely. The point is that BT are trying to close ~80% of their exchange locations. An all-fibre access network will mean that they only need 1000 exchanges nationwide. .... Keeping exchanges open to serve a handful of copper users is wasteful.

I suspect that, with a bit of thought, there could be a technological way of largely alleviating that 'problem'.

If you move the equipment that serves dialtone from the exchange to a cabinet in the neighbourhood, it's the same problem at a different scale [tens or hundreds of thousands of cabinets you have to keep having around rather than thousands of exchanges].

I'm not sure that I understand the perceived problem. One doesn't need FTTP to facilitate digital communication so, if the proportion of people without it became very small, then any necessary equipment could be installed in the (very small number of) consumer's premises, couldn't it?

The other reason that internet-only customers aren't subsidising voice-only customers is because of the ratios of the two populations!

I think there is precedent for both large populations subsidising small ones and vice versa!

 

[morqthana]

Fair enough, but the question surely is what it would cost (for people who did not want a 'broadband connection' at all) ?

Don't know, but analogue line rental wasn't free.

 

[morqthana]

I have tried to convince numerous companies/organisations to ring me on my VOIP landline (BT's Digital Voice) but they insist on using my mobile number.

Don't give it to them then.

 

[SUNRAY]

They haven't (at least, not yet) suggested that any further work will need to be done in the future.

They will, but there will be plenty of warning before they decommission the exchange

 

[JohnW2]

They will, but there will be plenty of warning before they decommission the exchange

All probably true.

 

[JohnW2]

Don't know, but analogue line rental wasn't free.

Indeed not, but I'm not talking about absolute cost but, rather, the cost of 'renting FTTP' for a just a telephone service in relation to the cost of 'renting' it for internet access (which some people might not want).

 

[SUNRAY]

BT do adapters which plug into a mains socket and you plug the phone into that, the adapter connects wirelessly to the modem. These are not the dreaded "powerline" networking thingies. I think they are DECT converters, and the BT modem has an inbuilt DECT base station, and with varying degrees of compatibility you can register any DECT handset with the modem. Or plug your DECT base station into the modem.

Is DECT in the hub something you believe to be the case?
I thought the power plug adapters are simply a wifi adapter as you go on to say:

You can get VoIP adapters with a phone socket that connect over WiFi or Ethernet to your modem.

When we went 'Full fibre' - except we are still on a copper pair service I commented we have 4 phones plugged in to the line so they sent out 2 adapters, however I hardwired the existing wiring similar to how you suggested. Additionally I have a 6 mile Ubiquity 5GHz link extending my home ethernet and at the other end an access point for WiFi, my VOIP works a treat there much to the amusement of a colleague.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Mine, fortunately, doesn't, as my router is nowhere near where my phone wiring runs. I have a separate little Grandstream voip adapter that plugs into the LAN in the office (aka rear bedroom), which is where the phone wiring runs from, and all the analogue phones hang off that.

My install, was much easier - copper came in via eaves, then into loft, where master socket, main bb router, along with wiring feeding down to rest of phone sockets. I managed to persuade fibre installer, to bring fibre in and install fibre router, where the bb router was - all just a matter of plugging in, and configuring.

 

[AndyPRK]

John I think you are over worrying.

While FTTP was initially more expensive (and new build home owners were forced to pay a premium), it is now normalised.

If you are being forced to move from copper phone line to FTTP phone only, I don't see why your contract should increase.

For people on low income, there are deals out there from a lot of providers. e.g £12/month (inc. Internet)

Annoying its those with internet are now having to pay an addition cost for a phone (VOIP). ~£5/month. It doesn't work in a power cut. Wilh EE you always have to dial an STD code, (even if its a local number). The only benefit seam's to be improved caller display pointing out Nuisance calls on certain products.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

If you are being forced to move from copper phone line to FTTP phone only, I don't see why your contract should increase.

For people on low income, there are deals out there from a lot of providers. e.g £12/month (inc. Internet)

It's basically, just a swap from copper, to a fibre system. I can't quite remember, but a figure of £17 per month, for a basic copper line rental sticks in my mind, from long ago, with broadband, and using the phone to make calls, extra. Several years on, the cost of living has gone up, so it makes my fibre line, including 150Mbps cheap, by comparison.

I understand, the VoIP is usually subbed out, to Voip provider specialists. So you can either find your own provider, or use the one your fibre provider offers. I've done the latter, for an extra £3 per month.

 

[JohnW2]

John I think you are over worrying.

I'm not worrying at all, at least as far as I am personally concerned, since I'm always going to want/need an Internet connection.

While FTTP was initially more expensive (and new build home owners were forced to pay a premium), it is now normalised.

Indeed so.

If you are being forced to move from copper phone line to FTTP phone only, I don't see why your contract should increase.

That's my very point. Like you, I don't see why it should increase - which is why I'm saying that I hope (for the sake of others)that it doesn't.

 

[morqthana]

As I've just written, I would imagine that it's far less than the 50% morqthana was talking about.

I wasn't suggesting 50%. In an earlier post I'd said "most", without thinking if it was actually 70%, 80%, 90%, whatever, and then I was trying to cover my tracks by suggesting that, technically, it only needed to be over 50% for "most" to be correct.

 

[morqthana]

Indeed not, but I'm not talking about absolute cost but, rather, the cost of 'renting FTTP' for a just a telephone service in relation to the cost of 'renting' it for internet access (which some people might not want).

But as you said, people don't need FTTP just for VoIP, FTTC is fine. But I don't know what the plans are (if any) for doing away with copper from the cabinet to premises.

 

[JohnW2]

I wasn't suggesting 50%. In an earlier post I'd said "most", without thinking if it was actually 70%, 80%, 90%, whatever, and then I was trying to cover my tracks by suggesting that, technically, it only needed to be over 50% for "most" to be correct.

Yes, I realised that, but was making the point that I'm sure that it must be very much more than 50%.

 

[JohnW2]

But as you said, people don't need FTTP just for VoIP, FTTC is fine.

Quite - which is why the issue is not about 'digital transmission'. Rather, it is about ...

But I don't know what the plans are (if any) for doing away with copper from the cabinet to premises.

... since loss of that terminal copper would necessarily make any use of the fibre cable dependent on some power source in the premises -= which is what has concerned some people.

Of course, the VoIP (or Internet connection in general) presumably could (given some 'power source' within the premises) still work through the copper connection between cabinet and premises of FTTC even if 'the power to the copper' (wherever it currently comes from) were 'switched off' - but I doubt they'd do that!