[Wylug-discuss] Re: Linux-friendly POTS-to-VOIP-to-POTS

[John Hodrien]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, gARetH baBB wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, John Hodrien wrote:
>
>> My sister was rejected for BT's low usage scheme because she owned
>> a mobile phone (annoying through BT at the time).  I don't really have a
>
> LUS is specifically a tariff for socially disadvantaged users, it *is* not
> a tariff for people with the money anyway to get a cheap line.
>
> LUS rates do not cover BT costs, it is a subsidised tariff agreed with
> OFCOM/OFTEL for a particular purpose under the USO.

I may have misworded the scheme.  They used to advertise a low usage scheme
where if you spent less than x per month you could pay less line rental.  It
may not exist now in its previous form (this was about 5 or 6 years ago) but
it definitely wasn't what you're describing.

> Full LLU is pretty much the cost BT requires to maintain and service a raw
> line at something which isn't a loss, that other providers either go for
> shared LLU or maintain DSL plus only slightly lower (though usually with
> eg. with different minimum terms) rental for voice tells you the cost
> involved are about what are achievable. Or they are providing a business
> DSL product, at a business rate.
>
> You are not going to get copper to the house, and the exchanges and repair
> mechanisms and workforce and wayleaves required etc., for anything less
> until drastic physical/practical technologies/costs change.

You reckon the LL costs 120 quid a year to maintain?  Any references for that?

jh

-- 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
  demo."                                              -- Andy Finkel