Feeds

AOL hits out at BT

Come on BT, what you got to say for yourself?

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

High performance access to file storage

AOL UK has taken off the gloves and given BT a bloody nose over its new pricing policy for its wholesale SurfTime product. Speaking exclusively to The Register, Matt Peacock, director of corporate communications at AOL UK, explains why BT's latest offering will be rejected by ISPs in Britain. Peacock's statement to BT: "This proposed product only covers the cost of half of the Internet call -- as far as the local exchange. It does not cover the other half of the call, from the local exchange to the regional exchange (DMSU), which is the point at which the connection to an ISP begins. In other words, contrary to BT's headline in their press release that this is "unlimited Internet access with no hidden charges", there are additional charges -- payable to BT -- for connecting from the local exchange to the DMSU. BT isn't paying for this bit of the call, it expects the ISP to do so. BT has not yet told the industry exactly what those additional costs will be -- so ISPs have no way of working out how this business model will affect their plans. And of course ISPs have not had a say in how they feel about this proposal in advance of today's announcement. So, BT wants to charge the consumer an unmetered fee of £20 per month to connect to the local exchange -- and it wants to charge ISPs an as-yet-undisclosed tariff (but probably metered on a per-minute basis) to connect from the local exchange to the regional exchange (DMSU). There is no competition in this offering -- BT is the sole supplier. That's bad news for the industry, and ultimately bad news for consumers. How can ISPs negotiate for the most competitive offering on behalf of consumers when there is no open competition amongst telcos at this level? This proposed product is available only from BT, which controls the connection from the doorstep to the local exchange of 85 per cent of the UK residential market. The connection from the local exchange to the regional exchange is also owned by BT. Competing telcos can lease capacity here, but at great cost and with limited viability. If ISPs don't like these options, they can of course buy modems in the local exchange. Er... from BT. There is no wholesale tariff for competing telcos. Competing telcos cannot take up this pricing structure and better it -- thereby denying ISPs the ability to leverage competition in the telco marketplace to the benefit of consumers. This proposed product has been announced even though the regulator (Oftel) is still considering it and has yet to pass judgement. This is the third time in five months that BT has announced the delivery of unmetered access. In that context, we would expect the regulator (and the industry) to examine this new proposal very carefully.

  • The first announcement, last November, turned out to be a mirage. It wasn't unmetered -- it wasn't even good value metered - and quickly disappeared from view.
  • The second announcement (SurfTime), one month later, quickly evaporated once the industry and regulator began to look closely at the model. One of the reasons that offering ran into the sand was the absence of a wholesale tariff. Guess what? This new offering doesn't include a wholesale tariff either...
  • Now we have today's announcement, which covers only half the cost of the call, doesn't yet explain how much the other half might cost, assumes that ISPs will take on that undisclosed cost without securing any advance indication from them that they are willing or able to do so, isn't available from any competitor, hasn't been approved by the regulator, and has added substantially to the already profound level of consumer confusion. Apart from that, it's just great. For 18 months now AOL UK has fought for simple, transparent, cost-effective, robust, competitive and sustainable unmetered Internet access for UK consumers. Where is the transparency here? How is this cost-effective and simple for consumers to understand? How does this compare to the simplicity of a typical $20 per month flat-rate Internet telephone access fee paid by US consumers? Answer: badly." If BT would like to respond to these criticisms The Register and its readers would be delighted to hear what it has to say. ®

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Dropbox defends fantastically badly timed Condoleezza Rice appointment
'Nothing is going to change with Dr. Rice's appointment,' file sharer promises
Audio fans, prepare yourself for the Second Coming ... of Blu-ray
High Fidelity Pure Audio – is this what your ears have been waiting for?
Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
And just when Brit banking org needs £400m to stay afloat
MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling
Bitcoin baron says he needs another lawyer for FinCEN chat
Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon flying broadband-bot
Apple DOMINATES the Valley, rakes in more profit than Google, HP, Intel, Cisco COMBINED
Cook & Co. also pay more taxes than those four worthies PLUS eBay and Oracle
It may be ILLEGAL to run Heartbleed health checks – IT lawyer
Do the right thing, earn up to 10 years in clink
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Learn about three of the top mobile application security threats facing businesses today and recommendations on how to mitigate the risk.
Combat fraud and increase customer satisfaction
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
SANS - Survey on application security programs
In this whitepaper learn about the state of application security programs and practices of 488 surveyed respondents, and discover how mature and effective these programs are.