The Times needs to up-date the BT logo...We have moved on.

Pat, FL, USA Ex Pat,

I pay dearly for a 2Mbit E1 but it's rare day that I see more than 100kbit/sec . If only we had something even close to BT here. Still, the sun also shines.

Jim Hatch, Acapulco, Mexico

ita a funny world when the government forces bt to maintain thousands of public payphones in the uk that are vandalised.
over and over again, this has cost millions of pounds since privatisation. according to the government this is an essential community service, what a waste of money, somebody should tell them weve all had mobiles for years. what a pity they do not apply this same logic to their own natinalsed company called the post office and abandon their Post Office closre programme.

mick riley, leeds, england

It is quite clear in a advanced technological society, we can not leave the infrastructure,of improving the quality of life for millions of people, in private hands.BT's claim that its shareholders take priority over the technological need of our society as a whole, is based purelyin Dickensian economics.
As the banks as a 19th century throwback have shown they can not protect people from losing money they hold. Hence needing a government guarrenttee pegged at £30,00, never seriously tested in a crisis,until the collapse of NORTHERN ROCK. It was clear in these conditions Nationalization was the only real way of protecting peoples savings and accounts.
It should in these factors,be seen that private enterprise at these levels is not working,and were the major evolution of the means of production in vital sectors is concerned.
BANKS,and BT, should specififcaly be Nationalised as these are prime bodies for the well being of the whole, and this will be the political and social answer.

Bill Mclinden, liverpool, england

Well I worked for BT up until 2004 the phone boxes need to be taken over by the government, however maybe the government could cut BT some slack after all they piled on the 6 billion debt for the bidding war in 2000 for 3g licences which still only has a 74% coverage area in the UK wadte of money really.
Tax breaks with the provision of inward investment of fibre to the home would pay dividends for many decades as nobody knows the actual capacity possible with optic fibre.
They would also need Government clearence to dig up anywhere for this provision as this has been the main bug bear for contracter companies previously having red tape prior to any permission to dig anywhere to assit the fully equipped media frenzy the UK needs for the future otherwise we are going to be in the dark ages behind Europe and Asia more so now.

Lawrence M`intosh, Liverpool,

I think BT should be made to install better networks and deliver to customers better service. I am a BT customer and my broadband as is usuall pathetic. BT claim that they do a good job but in reality they are far from it in recent years their profits have sky-rocketed and investment in infrastructure has not. Where has this profit gone? Into the pockets of the managers of course and to pay record salaries and pay-offs for directors.

Euan Stewart, Glasgow, Scotland,

We do take BT for granted!

joe c, london,

Terrible article confusing the issue of iPlayer with that of high speed to the home.

The amount of bandwidth available to the home through current technology (ADSL) is more than enough for the iPlayer. The only congestion is because BT and internet service providers want to save money by not providing enough bandwidth for all users from the main internet backbone to the local exchange. Their current business models are based on only having to provide 1/50th of the bandwidth to/from the exchange they provide to/from the home.

Ben, Cambridge,

Bt want the money for line rental for not doing a fat lot......
Surely some clever person sat behind a desk in some high rise white washed air conditioned offices away from the real world would've had the foresight to work out that one day the technology would change and they as the monopoly holder would have to replace this, but again money hasnt been set aside for this time due to Bt's lack of vision and it wants the obligation to fall wholesale on everyone when not every one has an equal chance bt need to get a grip and stop moaning!

Rob, walsall, United Kingdom

Thank god for that, give BT a chance.

Ray, Bangor, Gwynedd

Seeing BT has a virtual monopoly on telecoms infrastructure in the UK, I think it's extremely cheeky of Livingstone (Livingstone... now where has that name cropped up before? Oh yes...) to grizzle about the USO.

It's the price of being the monopoly holder!

The reality is that he wants to minimise costs and minimise investment so BT shares remain buoyant, so shareholders get nice dividends and board members get generous bonuses - quality of service doesn't figure in those calculations, which is why the UK's infrastructure is lagging behind... Japan, Korea, France, Germany, Sweden... the list is long and embarrassing,

Mr Livingstone needs to realise that if he wants BT to continue to enjoy the market advantage it currently enjoys - and it does, despite the smoke and mirrors OFCOM is happy to accept - then BT is going to have to bite the bullet and INVEST the shareholders money for a change!

Chris, St Leonards, UK

There should be a severence of B.T. retail from the U.S.O. operation. The rail service has' railtrack' to maintain the lines, signaling etc.

T.James., sheffield, Yorkshire

the internet speed in weston super mare is 5.0 mps thats bt for you. If ofcom does overtake bt i think we would ALL be happy with those speeds let alone cost of installation of bt and line rental and charges for storage space

brian medland, weston super mare,