In the "Need to Know" version of this story they talked with a BT representative about how things had worked out for BT after they were forced into local loop unbundling.
It worked out great for BT. They make more money leasing out the lines and leasing out space in their switching centers for the third party ISP's equipment than they were making providing monopoly ISP services directly.
It truly is a case of everyone wins. BT makes more money. Third party companies can start ISPs and make money. Consumers get plans that fit their needs better and cost less.
After looking at the options available that were linked in the article, I'm unsure that I agree that everyone wins. Specifically, consumers looking for the higher end of the spectrum.
At least, the only higher-end provider linked in the article, Demon [1], seems to offer abysmally low bandwidth caps on almost every plan, and generally low max download speeds (20Mb or less). How well are their bandwidth caps enforced? I ask because Comcast does not seem to enforce their bandwidth caps in San Francisco, at least for customers on their >$99/mo Home plans.
I realize that this is an extremely small sample size, how well does this trend describe other UK providers? Personally, given the option between any of the plans Demon has to offer, I'd still prefer my 50Mbps down/10 up Comcast line that has effectively no cap, for which I pay 100/mo. Is Demon the exception and not the rule when it comes to pricier third party providers in the UK?
I have symmetric 100 Mbps uncapped service in San Francisco for $33/month if I pay by the year or $45/month if I don't through Webpass. It works beautifully.
Ouch. My parents pay $45/month for 2Mbps. But they live in a rural mountain town where there's only one provider (plus satellite, which is even more expensive with interminable latency).
It isnt truly a case of everyone wins, consumers still need to pay ridiculous reconnection fees (these are typically £100 - £300, despite the fact there was an active line before you moved in)
As well as being forced to pay line rental (£8-£15pm) for a bt phone line despite no intention of ever making any calls.
BT definitely won out of it, not sure anyone else did.
"If a connection charge applies most people find they don't need to pay this it costs £30 if you're just taking a BT line or free with any broadband package."
Yep, i actually get charged a fee on top of my line rental because i dont make phone calls on it. I despise that i have to pay BT line rental then pay broadband from my other provider. I'd like to see 1 fee from my ISP of choice including line rental, just to make things simplier even if its the same price.
Paying both the incumbent operator and the ISP was the situation in France about ten years ago, at the very begining of DSL lines for the general public. It has been for ages that most people here only pay directly the ISP. Either the line is still owned by the incombent operator and the ISP lease it from him, or the line is bought by the ISP when necessary.
If they were truly interested in promoting competition, they would make it easier for new companies to offer broadband rather than forcing them to go through an incumbent.
The incumbent is split into separate organisations, which are effectively not allowed to communicate behind closed doors. BT Openreach provides access to the local loop, whereas BT Retail sells broadband to consumers. The setup is designed so that other ISPs have exactly the same interface to BT Openreach as BT Retail.
BT offered this arrangement to avoid being broken up - look up the "General Conditions of Entitlement" for more detail.
It worked out great for BT. They make more money leasing out the lines and leasing out space in their switching centers for the third party ISP's equipment than they were making providing monopoly ISP services directly.
It truly is a case of everyone wins. BT makes more money. Third party companies can start ISPs and make money. Consumers get plans that fit their needs better and cost less.