Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

House of Lords UK Superfast Broadband Inquiry Publishes Written Evidence

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 (2:16 pm) - Score 1,308
westminster uk government

The House of Lords Select Committee Inquiry into the UK governments superfast broadband strategy, which launched in mid-February 2012 (here) and closed for responses on 13th March 2012, has now published a full summary of all the written evidence submitted.

At present the coalition government aims for 90% of people in the UK to be within reach of a superfast broadband (24Mbps+) service by 2015 and for us to have “the best superfast broadband network in Europe” (scored on more than just speed), which is supported by less than £1bn of public subsidy from central government (local councils and the private sector are expected to match this with extra also coming from the EU).

Superfast Broadband Inquiry – Written evidence (PDF)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/communications/Superfastbroadband/SuperfastBroadbandEvidence.pdf

Sadly there are far too many responses for an easy summary of the 385 page long document and in any case most will be more interested in the Inquiry’s eventual conclusions, which are still pending but should follow in due course. So here are a few choice quotes from the various reply’s.

Quote from BT’s Written Evidence (Page 51)

It is impossible to give a specific answer to the question: what broadband speeds are required now? The private sector is having to promote the advantages of speeds above 24 Mbps while at the same time ensuring networks can run speeds of 80-100 Mbps and faster, in order to future-proof the UK’s broadband services. It is worth noting that in markets such as Singapore, Scandinavia and Japan, the actual take-up by customers of high speed services has been slow to materialise and is typically around 20% of users. It is also worth highlighting that larger businesses tend to have their own dedicated private circuits, delivering high speeds to match their requirements.

Quote from Fujitsu’s Written Evidence (Page 176)

The access solution for superfast broadband should not be limited to one infrastructure to provide the service. There should be no regulatory barriers or protection of existing access network providers that prevent services being introduced over all the existing infrastructures.

Quote from Ofcom’s Written Evidence (Page 291)

Ofcom has agreed that it will identify and collate the best data available from European countries in order to compile this scorecard [for checking against BDUK’s target]. This data will draw on those collected by the European Commission, the OECD and other agencies. Wherever possible we will use data that is in the public domain; however, in order to have the most robust and up-to-date data it may be necessary to conduct specific data collection or commission specific research. We plan to publish the first dataset in summer 2012, alongside the next update of the Broadband Communications Infrastructure Report.

Quote from TalkTalk’s Written Evidence (Page 341)

In an ideal world there would be competition at the network level since this would drive the most effective competition and innovation. It would also help BDUK ensure value for money. However the potential for competition at the network level is limited as the economics cannot support multiple networks. This is compounded by the difficulty that alternative fibre investors face in getting fair access to BT’s ducts and sub-loops to allow them to compete on an equal footing. Government and Ofcom intervention has been helpful in driving down wholesale prices but overall improvements are slow (for example, the process of getting access remains expensive and highly manual). Widespread competition at the network level is therefore unlikely in the medium term.

Given this, it is absolutely critical that BT provide an effective wholesale product to allow other ISPs to offer competing retail services. Though BT do offer a wholesale product (known as GEA) it is not yet working. Nothing demonstrates this more effectively than the fact that only BT itself is able to proactively market fibre services. It is now over two years since GEA was launched yet ISP competitors currently account for just 1% of the connections on the BT Openreach fibre network. This is compared to the legacy copper network where alternative ISPs account for over 60% of connections. This is the result of the lack of effective wholesale regulation.

Sadly such inquiries aren’t likely to impact the current strategy but could potentially influence the post-2015 policy, which has yet to be decided. The inquiry itself has already noted that “consumer demand for bandwidth is growing by around 60% a year” and predicts that broadband download speeds of 1Gbps (Gigabits per second) “may be needed” by 2020.

Lords Select Committee (Communications) – Superfast Broadband Inquiry
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/…

Leave a Comment
115 Responses
    • At least it’s not as bad as trying to summaries one of those occasional 600 page+ reports from Ofcom, which turn human brains into jelly sausages of joy 🙂 .

  1. Overall the consensus seems to point to an unfair monopoly in the UK protecting a phone network? (I have read it). What are the Lords going to do about it? How can we feed the information within it to Europe?

    • Avatar FibreFred

      “Overall the consensus seems to point to an unfair monopoly in the UK protecting a phone network?”

      You mean the consensus of BT’s rivals? What else would you expect them to say? How blinkered.

      Instead read the BSG’s comments they aren’t selling anything

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Chris
      Odd point about the concensus. As it says on TBB:

      “There are no conclusions drawn at this stage, simply a book comprising the many submissions, which range from Aardman Animations to Wispa Limited. ”

      So perhaps comments on a concensus should wait until there are some conclusions!

  2. Avatar Deduction

    quote”The inquiry itself has already noted that “consumer demand for bandwidth is growing by around 60% a year” and predicts that broadband download speeds of 1Gbps (Gigabits per second) “may be needed” by 2020.”

    So nothing we didnt know

  3. Avatar Phil

    50Gbps by the time in 2050 in whole UK. I won’t be here anyway, I be in heaven.

  4. Avatar Deduction

    If 1Gbps is needed come 2020 and most of us are still stuck on FTTC 200Mb (the most it can do) speeds thats going to be very painful, especially as most of the country will not even get that full 200Mb due to distance from cabinet. The situation will be worse than what we have now with speeds over 5x slower that what is required.

  5. Avatar Somerset

    As HD video only needs 10M what are the applications that will need 1G?

    Do not confuse fibre connections providing 1G with any demand for 1G.

  6. Avatar zemadeiran

    By 2050 we will have quantum networks that need no physical infrastructure.

    Unlimited bandwidth fully encrypted from anywhere in the universe!

    Spooky…

  7. Avatar SlowSomerset

    My exchange is not even on 21cn yet so 1Gbps is fantasy world would be nice just to watch iplayer now and again in the evenings when I get home from work as it is useless at the moment.
    When the hell is Somerset County Council going to start announcing when and where the BDUK money is going to be spent, my guess is most of it will be wasted.

  8. Avatar SlowSomerset

    Yes have seen all this somerset yet another consultation but when are we going to know. I think the only superfast thing going through our village of cannington will be the traffic going to the new power station.
    Also how does the college manage in the village with slow internet speed ?.

  9. Avatar Deduction

    quote”As HD video only needs 10M what are the applications that will need 1G?”

    Typical of someone that thinks the government and BT have done a good job.

    TRUE HD video needs more than 10Mb Just because something has a 720p or 1080p resolution does not make it HD. (google bits per pixel for starters)

    DVD MPEG2 video can actually have a max bitrate of 9.8Mbs perhaps thats what you mean, even though thats SD???….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video

    And even if all thats irrelevant come 2020 1080p will be a dinosaur. Come that time the world will be moving on to 2k or 4k formats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

    10Mb even 200Mb is not likely to be enough to be anywhere near truly future proof. It has about 15 years life top…. You can already even find 4k resolution stuff on youtube, albeit at rubbish reduced bitartes.

  10. Avatar Deduction

    New games consoles which will be coming in the next few years (PS4 and xbox 720 or whatever they get called) are already rumoured will display resolutions beyond 1080p. 1080p content and resolutions within 20 years will be old tat.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      Good point, let’s double the national debt so you can PLAY GAMES on the XBox 1440 at 4k resolution, what’s not to like!

  11. Avatar Deduction

    quote”Maybe! But who should fund connectivity for entertainment?”

    That would be BT, Virgin or whoever it concerns thereself.

    The likes of Sony, Microsoft and many others can keep pace with developing technology. The government didnt help Sony invent Bluray or help fund them in the HDDVD vs Bluray fight which happened. They figured out how to put more data on the same sized bit of plastic, BT (or any other company)can figure out how to shove more data down the same sized bit of cable as far as im concerned.

    The government hasnt helped Sky or Talk Talk with its future connectivity plans either have they?

    Not to mention if its US “who should fund connectivity for entertainment” then technically havent we done that already with the BT FTTC rollout? If we have funded that why are BT then going to charge us monthly to use a system of cables the tax payer paid for and thus should own.

    What will you think of next…… Council tax along with a new tax to walk on the pavements we paid for already?

    • Avatar Somerset

      Companies will fund enhancements when there is demand. eg ADSL2+ and FTTC etc.

      Apart from a few isolated cases hasn’t BT funded FTTC itself?

      Sky and TalkTalk don’t do physical stuff in the ground.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      Actually BT’s shareholders have funded virtually all the FTTC rollout. The few examples where state aid has been involved have been where it has provided a minority of the money to get fast broadband deployed where it otherwise would not have been.

      The only example I can recall with 100% public funding is the mis-named “digital region” where IIRC £100m was spent to get a couple of hundred users in urban areas that would have got private sector funding anyway. Would have been far cheaper to pay for private circuits to each of the people that wanted it, or give each one £10,000!

  12. Avatar Deduction

    They would also no doubt be the “best” pavements in Europe, only with a “speed” limit on how fast you may walk on them, but at the same time no USO that allows you to walk at that speed. Instead all walking on the pavements will be universally upgraded to “super fast” walking speeds.

  13. Avatar Deduction

    quote”Companies will fund enhancements when there is demand. eg ADSL2+ and FTTC etc.”

    If that were true it wouldnt had taken BT as long as it is to upgrade EVERY exchange to just ADSL2+ (or as they call it 21CN) standard. Some of them still are not done. They are and were several years behind other LLUs that have provided ADSL2+ to millions of customers for years.

    quote”Apart from a few isolated cases hasn’t BT funded FTTC itself?”

    NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the entire BDUK pot.

    quote”Sky and TalkTalk don’t do physical stuff in the ground.”

    Neither do BT retail yet they seem to be the only ISP that can afford to provide 80Mb FTTC upgrades from 40Mb to customers.

    Could also be argued “stuff in the ground” doesnt even come into the equation about funding. IF we want to go down that road…… Why havent the mobile telcos that are going to provide 4G had a slice of BDUK funds or even the satellite providers???

    Ive yet to hear one reasonable and logical explanation as to why a single company be it BT or anyone else should get an entire “next gen” fund thats been set aside from tax payers cash. Oh, and not only get that fund but then be able to charge what is a rather ordinary price rather than bargain monthly rate to use the service where the tax payer has contributed at worst case a significant share in the infrastructure. In addition to that then also charge providers that want to use that infrastructure an additional charge to raise the speed from 40Mb to 80Mb even though to do that there is basically no further work involved.

    Our whole so called “next gen” broadband has been a total joke from the start and now its actually being shown for the expensive, unfair and utter undemocratic distribution of funds that it is.

    • Avatar Gadget

      I’d suggest that all the current cabinets (apart from Northern Ireland and Cornwall – and these were still majority BT-funded) were self funded by BT.

      You may have missed this announcement by TalkTalk regarding the availability of 80Mbps Superfast broadband earlier in March (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/44879/talktalk-joins-superfast-broadband-race).

    • Avatar Somerset

      As a random example would you please show how FTTC in the Birmingham area has been funded.

      Many people are unhappy that the BDUK funds are taking so long to be spent.

      And – http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/broadband-satellite-operator-avanti-wins-extra-uk-government-funding.html

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      Agree Somerset, virtually every area to date!

    • Avatar FibreFred

      Oh he’s not still banging this drum is he? Where do you think the 2bil BT have invested has gone? BDUK funding hasn’t even been released has it? How can BT have spent it.

      So you think £500m ( most of which hasn’t been released yet, if at all) covers the entire BT FTTC rollout to date?

      Shame on you and your twoddle

      Instead of playing your usual games, show us a list of all of the BDUK funded FTTC rollouts to date the full list, once you have that list the rest are self funded by BT

      That should be easy enough for you? Its you with the point to prove, prove it. You said the same thing months ago and where made to look silly then, seems you’ve not had enough?

    • Avatar FibreFred

      And what is this UK funding (non BDUK) you speak of, again show me which of the BT FTTC have used this UK funding, a list would be nice.

  14. Avatar SlowSomerset

    Must admit have to agree with Deduction, it seems to me that the areas that already have fast broadband just seem to get faster while the rest of us stay in the slow lane. Just notiched according to Sanknows that my exchange will be upgraded TO 21CN in October, why don’t they just go to FTTC ?. People that I have talked to tell me that 21cn is still pretty rubish at peak times, oh well at least its a start.

  15. Avatar Deduction

    quote”I’d suggest that all the current cabinets (apart from Northern Ireland and Cornwall – and these were still majority BT-funded) were self funded by BT.”

    I NEVER SAID CABINETS.

    Pity the same culprits still cant read.

  16. Avatar Deduction

    As to Birmingham….
    http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8730.aspx
    and
    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2012/03/21/budget-brings-broadband-cash-for-smaller-cities-40145646/

    Just for starters, or as i stated….
    “NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the entire BDUK pot.”

    Of course i may be wrong in which case feel free to show me what organisations got/will get that money for Birmingham.

  17. Avatar Somerset

    re ‘NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the entire BDUK pot.’

    The rollout of FTTC to date in the vast majority of cases has been funded solely by BT. eg. Solihull.

    The 2 links refer to completing/enhancing the coverage in areas like Birmingham in the future.

  18. Avatar Deduction

    and as i said…..
    Of course i may be wrong in which case feel free to show me what organisations got/will get that money for Birmingham.

    The first link clearly states….
    “BT and Virgin will strengthen their networks in the winning cities to deliver 80-100Mbps broadband speeds.”

    Did Virgin not withdraw from the process entirely earlier this year? In which case that only leaves BT who will get the money.

    Unless you can show otherwise??

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      The usual inaccuracies from the usual suspect!

      No Virgin didn’t withdraw from the process, it was never in it as it doesn’t offer wholesale so cannot bid for any state- funded projects.

      Quote “Feel free to show me what organisations got/will get…”. So you’re looking for predictions regarding future decisions? How odd.

      Your original question was, quote:

      “NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the entire BDUK pot.”

      The answer remains virtually every part of the country where FTTC/P has been deployed to date with the exception of Corwall and N.Ireland. Need some examples? London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff, Manchester, Basingstoke, …

    • Avatar Somerset

      The cities project is separate to the BDUK scheme. In these places VM may get money to expand their network.

      So, again, explain how you believe FTTC has been funded.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      He can’t explain Somerset, its the usual Deduction nonsense, he comes out with something that you can’t easily disprove which also happens to be something he can’t prove either, but as he mentioned it first his view has to be true as you cannot disprove it unless of course you have access to internal BT projects which we don’t have.

      He might as well have said that the entire BT FTTC rollout to date was funded by unclaimed child benefit money, you can’t prove that isn’t the case so… could be true.

      Such is the logic in his world.

  19. Avatar Deduction

    quote”The cities project is separate to the BDUK scheme.”

    I never said it was i simply stated Birmingham has FTTC, that FTTC is done by BT that area of the country has had government money for FTTC.

    BT have or will also get BDUK funding for Birmingham also though….
    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/08/16/uk-government-allocates-remaining-superfast-broadband-budget-to-local-councils.html

    Item 41

    Of course you and your multi IDs once again feel free to show where the money has gone or is going as BT are basically the only ones left in the BDUK scheme.

    Clearly BT are being funded for Birmingham.

    • Avatar Somerset

      Please show how and where government money has funded the past and current FTTC installations in the Birmingham area.

  20. Avatar Deduction

    Its quite simply amazing every time a discussion like this comes up you think BT should be the only ones to get funding. You cant explain why though.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      And when you cant provide evidence that all bt Fttc rollouts are gov/public funded you change the discussion into something else. It’s your claim – please prove it . No diversions just prove what you have said. Don’t link to a few random deployments show that all of them so far have funding hell show me 50% that will do for now

    • Avatar Somerset

      The BDUK money (remember current FTTC was BT funded) does not appear to be sufficient for any company to do FTTP, much as we would like it.

  21. Avatar Deduction

    quote”And when you cant provide evidence that all bt Fttc rollouts are gov/public funded you change the discussion into something else. It’s your claim – please prove it .”

    I claimed no such thing, as far as im concerned they may not have had funding in every area of the country. I just not aware of any where they have not. I therfore simply asked you or anyone else reading to name an area where they have NOT had funding.

    Birmingham clearly has been allocated BDUK money and additional funds. BT is the provider of FTTC in Birmingham and the beneficiary of the cash.

    Please feel free AGAIN to show an area of the country BT is rolling out FTTC and is taking NO government cash whatsoever to do it.

    Im not aware of any, im simply asking you or anyone to provide details of an area where they have had no government cash, wont be getting any and have spent their own money.

    Cant be that hard to name if there are so many areas BT have funded which the tax payer hasnt.

    Birmingham though its clear from the links i provided is not such an area, Birmingham and BT will or more than likely have already had government funds…… Unless you are saying there are other BDUK bidders in Birmingham, in which case feel free to educate me, name them and link to them…… That cant be too hard either can it.

    Unfortunately i suspect you will just continue to troll say im wrong and have nothing whatsoever to back up your claims.

    • Avatar Gadget

      The announcements of FTTC in exchange areas in Birmingham was made well before any allocation of BDUK funding.
      In fact the first award from BDUK was on April 2012 for Lancashire (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/bt-broadband-bduk-62-5m-lancashire-71180) to cover the areas in Lancs not considered viable by ANY operator (the so-called “white areas”.
      BDUK funds can only be available in white areas and the award must be made be the success in a competitive tender, either specific to the area or part of the BDUK framework contract.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      As I thought you cannot back your claim, only move goalposts

    • Avatar Somerset

      Try again. Solihull FTTC and virtually all the current FTTC exchanges.

      BDUK funding has not started. It will be for the ‘white’ areas – read the BDUK and county documents. Not the existing areas.

      So please show where government funding has gone to existing areas. The list is here: http://www.openreach.co.uk/accepting_orders

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      Please refer to my list above poted in response to your earlier question.

      You are confusing two entirely different things, the allocation of public funds and the award of those funds. Just because funds have been set aside does not mean that they have been awarded to BT or anyone else, any deployment undertaken by BT and others to date will be at their expense, funded by their shareholders.

      In due course a tender exercise will be completed for any BDUK money, after which point the company winning the contract will have public funding for deployment in specific areas (those deemed uneconomic for private sector deployment). Note this money won’t fund past deployments, and will usually only pay for a minority of the cost in the area beig funded.

      So virtually all FTTC deployment to date across the country has been paid for only by BT’s shareholders, with Cornwall and N.Ireland being the main exceptions. Hope this clears things up for you.

  22. Avatar Deduction

    No you named Birmingham, you claimed BT have no funding for Birmingham, you show me which organisation in Birmingham is getting the BDUK funds.

    You cant do it because you know its BT thats getting the money.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      You’re asking a question which cannot be answered yet, betraying a lack of knowledge of the current status of the BDUK and Urban Broadband Fund processes. No announcement has been made about the awarding of funds to deploy in Birmingham, and all the deployment to date has been funded by the shareholders of the companies concerned. As is the case for almost all deployments to date across the country.

    • Avatar Somerset

      Solihull, as an example, has FTTC. Funded by BT. Unless you can prove otherwise.

  23. Avatar Deduction

    quote”@Deduction
    You’re asking a question which cannot be answered yet, betraying a lack of knowledge of the current status of the BDUK and Urban Broadband Fund processes.”

    No im not….. Name the bidders involved in obtaining BDUK funds for Birmingham then. For someone other than BT to win those funds there must be other bidders for the cash. Name them.

    quote”to date has been funded by the shareholders of the companies concerned. As is the case for almost all deployments to date across the country.”

    Wrong again, best go check that, most deployments have been subject to local authority funding. There is not a single city where BT either havent had funds or are getting funds of some description.

    @Somerset…..

    See the link i gave previously http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/08/16/uk-government-allocates-remaining-superfast-broadband-budget-to-local-councils.html

    This time for Solihull look at item number 39. If Bt is not getting that money name which company is please. Or if you cant do that, point to a list of companies bidding for the cash.

    • Avatar Gadget

      Item 39 shows money has been allocated – no contracts signed as yet, for the 21% of Warwickshire not covered by existing rollout or planned rollout from any operator be it copper, co-ax or wireless.

      The rest, lets say 79% are being done without any public funding.
      I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are white areas virtually everywhere, and these will be match funded – but the rest is not getting a penny.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      And just to remind you what you have said to date:-

      quote”Apart from a few isolated cases hasn’t BT funded FTTC itself?”

      NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding.

      So we are very clearly talking about where BT “has” deployed FTTC already deployed being past tense, deploying being future.

      So you are saying that most deployments to date have have had funding:-

      “most deployments have been subject to local authority funding”

      again”have been” past tense.

      So… I say again, from the OR list showing exchanges accepting orders, please show which ones (all of them surely?) have had local authority funding or any type of funding.

      This is ones to date, not future ones which you’ve wormed in as you know you are wrong. Ones to date with funding… I expect your next reply to name them all then its case closed.

    • Avatar Somerset

      39. Warwickshire
      Warwickshire, Coventry, Solihull
      White Premises: 119,757 (25.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,070,000

      White premises – those that the private sector is not funding itself.

  24. Avatar FibreFred

    Name all of the exchanges taking

  25. Avatar FibreFred

    … Orders on the Openreach list that have had funding then should be easy ?

  26. Avatar Deduction

    No you named Solihull and Birmingham, both those areas are subject to BDUK funds. If BT are not getting the money for those areas name who is?…… Infact im making it even easier, name just the bidders involved in those 2 areas for the BDUK funds.

    I believe BT are getting funding in some description for every area, of the country. Im happy to admit im wrong when someone shows me an area where they havent had their hands in the tax payer pot……..

    @somerset quote”39. Warwickshire
    Warwickshire, Coventry, Solihull
    White Premises: 119,757 (25.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,070,000

    White premises – those that the private sector is not funding itself.”

    Proves my point then a quarter of that area the tax payer is funding.
    TRY AGAIN……..
    Name another area somerset where BT have no funding. THERE IS NONE! Though im happy to admit im wrong when its shown.

    • Avatar Gadget

      At the risk of stating the obvious the areas that are not getting the funding are the non-white areas.
      And here BT (and others) have deployed/deploying using their own money

    • Avatar Somerset

      In detail then. BT has rolled out FTTC to many areas of the UK. The white areas are those where it is not financially viable to roll out VM or BT FTTC. This can be complete exchange areas or individual cabinets serving properties in an exchange area. Plus areas where there are no cabinets and lines are fed directly from the exchange. However the majority of existing FTTC cabinet areas have been funded by BT.

      BDUK money is for properties not covered by BT funding and not yet issued.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      As noted by others, the fundamental problem here is that you don’t seem to understand that virtually none of the BDUK money has been awarded let alone spent, so almost all deployment to date has been funded by the private sector. The main exceptions being Cornwall (mainly private sector funded), N.Ireland (can’t remember split), some parts of N.Wales and S.Yorkshire (“Digital Region 00% public funding despite competing with private sector investment). More recently BDUK bids have been awarded in Lancasire and Rutland, but too soon fir any of this to have been spent.

      So as others have stated, pretty much all of the current deployments have been private sector funded, certainly over 90%. Clearly this will change over time but you question was about past investment as it was in the past tense. You can’t criticise a company for its past decisions because of hypothetical future decisions by others.

      You ought to note too that the BDUK and Urban Broadband Fund contracts will almost certainly all require matched funding by the winning bidder. This will mean that, in the unlikely event that BT secured all of the money, it’s own investment would have to rise as well. This should mean that shareholder money would be well over 80% of the total spend.

      That aside though, your general pont remains incorrect. The vast majority of FTTC/P deployment to date HAS NOT had any public funding.

  27. Avatar FibreFred

    I’ve not named anything

    “I believe BT are getting funding in some description for every area, of the country. Im happy to admit im wrong when someone shows me an area where they havent had their hands in the tax payer pot……..”

    No.. this is your point to prove, evidence of this please. Not evidence to “counter” your wild claim, evidence of it in the first place.

    There’s no point in saying you believe the moon is made of cheese and asking for evidence it isn’t. Prove what you are claiming, list all of the non-BT funded exchanges, to date.

  28. Avatar Deduction

    No its your claim BT are funding things there self, its my claim any area you name BT has had or will have funding and are have not funded things entirely for thereself.

    Both Birmingham and Solihull which have been named are subject to BDUK funding. Thus both those areas BT have not funded thereself. A quarter of Solihull by Somersets own admission will be subject to BDUK funding.

    There is no area BT have deployed to purely at there own expense from what i can see and no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise you can not show it to be the case. Both examples given have had or will have funding, and unless there are other bidders for Solihull and Birmingham its BT thats gonna get that money and thus BT have not enabled those areas FULLY at ENTIRELY their own expense.

    You can claim otherwise but the facts which have been linked to and quoted speak louder than your wrong opinion.

    • Avatar Gadget

      21% of Warwickshire has been names as having BDUK funding “Warwickshire, Coventry, Solihull
      White Premises: 119,757 (25.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,070,000” Therefore I name the other 79% and not having BDUK funding – simples

    • Avatar FibreFred

      “No its your claim BT are funding things there self, its my claim any area you name BT has had or will have funding and are have not funded things entirely for thereself. ”

      No that isn’t your claim, read what you posted its up there ^

  29. Avatar Deduction

    I dunno why it would be so hard to name just one area of the country that BT have funded entirely at their own expense if they have done so much with their own money. Im only asking for one part of the country, so far nobody can name a single area.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      And why can’t you answer my question ? You keep avoiding it because you can’t answer it as what you have stated isn’t true , the more you ignore it the more ridiculous you look

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      Answer already provided! Suggest you read the responses before asking again.

      You’ve tried to ignore it by citing money that MAY be awarded in the future, however that is not relevant to the question that you asked. And as posted by another, virtually every other area included on the current list of areas with FTTC/P.

    • Avatar Somerset

      Existing cabinets in Solihull.

  30. Avatar Somerset

    or 79% of Warwickshire has been funded by the private sector.

  31. Avatar Deduction

    Which in turn means Warwickshire is also subject to public funding.

    Come on name an area which isnt subject to the tax payer funding BT.

    You cant no matter how many IDs you post with.

    Im right no FTTC area has been done at entirely BTs expense.

    You can not even name bidders for further money that has yet to be awarded, because we all know BT are gonna take the entire BDUK pot also.

    Gone on just 1 area of the country which BT have funded 100% thereself……. There is none ROFLMAO

  32. Avatar New_Londoner

    @Deduction
    Either you’re not reading replies to your posts or you simply don’t understand what various people are all telling you. Given the tense of your original statement/question, my original list of locations is as good as any – London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff, Manchester, Basingstoke, …

    If you feel these are wrong, please post links that show public funds have been paid to BT for deployment in each.

    • Avatar Somerset

      To be 100% clear, it’s those cabinets in the published exchange areas. Not all cabinets are financially viable for FTTC so some are missing and a very few have have public funds.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      He understands fully he simply cannot backup his own claim so chooses to twist things around. If his statements that I have reiterated were true he could provide evidence easy enough the fact that he cannot after being asked countless times says it all. Yet another deduction blunder

  33. Avatar Deduction

    Still no answer on what areas BT are funding for thereself?

    Ive shown quite clearly Birmingham, Solihull or Warwickshire are not 100% funded by BT.

    The only one with no evidence is a multi ID troll that thinks BT have funded areas of the country thereself yet every area they name has or is subject to the tax payer helping BT.

    • Avatar Somerset

      Please read my answer. No one is claiming that BT is funding all of an area, assuming an area is a town or county. BT is funding those cabinets covering certain properties within its network that are commercially viable for BT and the ISPs, who are its customers. The end users are customers of the ISPs.

      The rest of the country are the ‘white’ areas seeking BDUK funding.

      Is that clear?

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      Quote “Ive shown quite clearly Birmingham, Solihull or Warwickshire are not 100% funded by BT.”

      Actually you haven’t, you have simply shown that there will be public money available to part-fund deployment to uneconomic parts of these areas in the future, which is nothing to do with funding for the deployment that has taken place to date. In addition, decisions on which companies will get the funding in each of these areas have yet to be taken, whereas you have claimed BT has received public subsidy in every area of the UK for all of its deployments to date.

      As a reminder, from your original post making the erroneous assertion:

      quote”Apart from a few isolated cases hasn’t BT funded FTTC itself?”

      NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no
      investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the
      entire BDUK pot.

      So your assertion was about funding already provided to BT for existing deployments, but your “proof” is about the possible award of future public monies (BDUK, Urban Broadband Fund), which is not what you stated. Time to drop your usual bluster and either provide evidence of public money that has already been paid directly to BT for each of the areas that I’ve listed several times now – put up or shut up as they say!

      The list of locations for which your proof of public money alreading having been paid is London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff, Manchester and Basingstoke. Should be easy given you’re confident assertions, so no excuses, a link for each location in your next post please.

  34. Avatar Deduction

    PS… It would be nice if for once on a news item on this site you could wait more than 1 hour before spewing it with gibberish between your multi nicks.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      I see you are still lying about your original statement? Thankfully its their plain to see for everyone else what you originally said, not what you are saying now.

  35. Avatar Deduction

    I stand by what i originally stated, there is no FTTC area in this country entirely funded by BT.

    Point to one if there is, your 3 attempts thus far are a fail.

  36. Avatar Deduction

    The trouble with you and your other schizo personalities is you live in the past. If we are talking about what was originally said then it looks like, tech such as 1080p is “new” to you, you dunno what actually makes something HD you appear to be happy watching your black and white TV and using the wet string that is BT for broadband and promoting it in every thread in the vain hope it will increase their share price.
    Its thus no wonder why you can not even pin point a single location where BT will be doing a FTTC rollout at entirely their own cost.
    I wonder what you new excuse will be once all the BDUK money goes to BT also?

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      I note you’re now using the multi-I’d line, which usually comes out as a tactic to try to cover up when you’re unable to win a debate, actually answer a question. Same with the insults.

      As stated above, either you’re not reading replies to your posts or you simply don’t understand what various people are all telling you. Given the tense of your original statement/question, my original list of locations is as good as any – London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff, Manchester, Basingstoke, …

      If you feel these are wrong, please post links for each that show public funds have already been paid to BT for deployment. To be clear, this is not Simply links to show the company is involved in tenders, but that public sector money has actually been paid to fund each of the deployments as you have stated.

      Should not be difficult given your repeated assertions.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      If you really struggle to understand what you have written maybe you shouldn’t write:-

      “NO unless you can name a single area where BT have deployed FTTC with no investment be it UK, EU or local funding. Not content with that they now want the entire BDUK pot.”

      You said “deployed” as in what they have deployed to date, that big list of OR exchanges.

      And then you talk about BDUK and your recent comments are all about BDUK money, money that hasn’t been awarded or spent in the vast majority (if not all) never mind put into deployment

      It seems you’ve tried this in the past and failed then as you are failing now:-

      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/01/05/hull-isp-kc-warns-of-uk-two-tier-fibre-optic-broadband-deployment-in-2012.html

      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/10/05/bt-plans-fibre-optic-broadband-isp-speed-boost-to-300mbps-from-spring-2012.html

    • Avatar Somerset

      The locations are the vast majority of the existing FTTC cabinet areas across the UK.

  37. Avatar Deduction

    quote”I see you are still lying about your original statement?”

    My original statement for funding was…
    “Not to mention if its US “who should fund connectivity for entertainment” then technically havent we done that already with the BT FTTC rollout? If we have funded that why are BT then going to charge us monthly to use a system of cables the tax payer paid for and thus should own.”

    Nothing to do with cabinets your multi nick keeps going on about. None of my argument has been about who pays for cabinets but the deployment of FTTC. If an area (you know a big place with a telephone exchange which has thousands connected to it) in some manner gets tax payer cash, then the deployment for that area obviously is not entirely funded by BT.
    The equipment at the exchange, fibre cabling, workforce to provide to some areas, and alot more will have been funded by the tax payer cash they are given, be it from the EU, local authority or BDUK funds.
    The simple fact is as a shareholder though you dont like truths like that.

    quote”If you really struggle to understand what you have written maybe you shouldn’t write:-”

    The only one struggling is the one that cant name an area BT have funded for thereself or follow a thread with actual original remarks.

    STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO NAME A FTTC AREA DONE ENTIRELY AT BTS EXPENSE…. AGAIN AS IN MANY OTHER NEWS ITEMS YOU CANT DO IT.

    • Avatar Somerset

      The equipment in existing areas, like Solihull, have been funded by BT. No BDUK funds have been issued. Can you show otherwise with links to documents?

      Is there any reason why you cannot be polite in your postings?

  38. Avatar Deduction

    It follows and makes even more sense when BT thereself say they will plough 2.5 billion into rolling out FTTC and for the past few months have been hiring more staff to get the rollout done.

    Now either…
    Someone is paying those extra staff.

    Or…
    Its coming out of the pledged 2.5 billion.

    If its coming out of the 2.5 billion then obviously that means less money left for these cabinets you keep blabbering about anyway, which in turn means less areas connected.

    If of course though they use funding to pay a percentage of the wages to these new staff then sure the rest of the 2.5 billion may go on infrastructure, but its still irrelevant as the public purse is funding the staff and thus still (IE not all at BT expense) in part funding the rollout.

    Thats simply budgeting for a simpleton, you still wont comprehend that either though.

  39. Avatar FibreFred

    The trolling continues. There’s no point in conversing with in the inept

  40. Avatar Deduction

    I Replied in the same style i was spoken to.

    Oh and still waiting for an area where BT have funded a FTTC rollout at their own expense.

    Who is paying for these new Openreach staff employed to speed up the FTTC rollout? Is that the tax payer or is it coming out of the 2.5 billion BT pledged for FTTC?

    If its coming out of 2.5 billion budget thats less money for the cabinets you keep going on about.

    Budget > New staff extra expense > Less money for hardware…. Very easy to follow.

    Or if its the tax payer… Then i have to even question areas where you think the rollout has been done at BTs expense if these new staff were used.

    Obviously i may be entirely wrong, so i ask again please go ahead and show an area done at BTs own expense.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      I refer you yet again to the list I’ve provided many times and look forward to a comprehensive reply.

      By the way, to own something you need to pay for it. As you will no doubt understand, the various schemes involving public funidng usually only tend to pay for a minority of the cost in order to encourage a private sector provider to do something that it would not otherwise do because it does not make sense commercially. Therefore you are not buying the cables, cabinets etc but are simply effectively commissioning a company to deliver something mainly at its expense.

    • Avatar Somerset

      As an example – the existing FTTC cabinets in Solihull was funded by BT at its own expense, unless you can prove otherwise with links to documents.

      If the BDUK was not happening the BT rollout would soon end.

  41. Avatar Gadget

    BT have rolled out at their own expense all the currently enabled cabinet except for Northern Ireland (where there was DETI intervention funding), Cornwall (where there has been funding), a couple of cabinets in Iwade (gap-funded) on the Sittingbourne exchange.

    Not all cabinets in the exchanges have been enabled, and not all exchanges have cabinets enabled in them. It is these remaining areas which the current BDUK funding is intended for (as long as there are no other current suppliers such as Virgin or WISPs, or BT have not declared to BDUK that they are likely to enable within their own funded rollout). And to date only one contract has been let for BDUK enablement as referenced above.

    So if you go to any exchange area in the Openreach list where there is super-fast broadband APART from the three areas mentioned initially and you find a VDSL cabinet IT HAS BEEN PAID FOR OUT OF BT’s OWN MONEY. Any cabinets in the “coming-soon” list likewise entirely funded from BT’ own money.

    Hope this makes it clear enough.

  42. As most people have clearly said, outside of a few pre-BDUK – but still publicly supported areas – like Cornwall, the majority of BT’s FTTC / FTTP rollout has come from their own £2.5bn investment. I’m not even sure why there’s an argument over that 🙂 . After the first 66% is reached then we’ll be in to publicly match-funded territory.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @MarkJ
      Good to hear the majority of us actually know what we’re posting about, that it’s just the noisy minority that don’t!

  43. Avatar Deduction

    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/lse-identifies-1-1bn-shortfall-in-uk-governments-broadband-funding.html

    Indicates otherwise. Not only have millions in new funds been allocated for cities but the potential for BTs own 2.5 billion in public investment may be roughly equaled (add up all the figures) possibly even exceeded. The majority of the rollout thus is not and will not be done with BTs 2.5 billion.

    Furthermore there is not a single area in the country which has been done at entirely BTs own expense from what i am aware of. Everytime i ask for just a single example none is give and it always turns out to be a part public funded area.

    BT havent (assuming for once they are using real life maths and not their daydream figures) even spent their 2.5 billion. That 2.5 billion is supposed to see 66% of the country enabled, not even 40% is currently done.

    Which also ponders the question why are they continually sniffing around for new funds when they havent even yet enabled a percentage they promised and thus not even spent the amount the allocated for that percentage.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      Suggest you re-read your own posts and check the tense of what you have written. You asked for examples of areas where BT has funded fully the deployment of FTTC/P, a request responded to by me and others. To date you have been unable to provide any indication that these locations are incorrect.

      What you have done however is to provide links to information about public funds that will be available in the future. In most cases the recipients of these funds have yet to be determined, so the money may or may not be awarded to BT. However this is not relevant to the question posed, which was about what has been deployed to date, not about hypothetical awards of public funds in the future.

      So, as asked many times now, please provide evidence if public funds having already been given to BT to fund the deployments in each of the locations I named at your request. These were London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff and Basingstoke.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      It’s obvious from your posts here and againt many other stories that you have a particular world-view and njoy posing questions of others based on that view. However it’s equally apparent that you cannot deal with responses that challenge that view, nor are you able to handle proof of it being wrong. At best this results in you disregarding the information provided or a change of the subject, at worst it results in insults.

      perhaps this is a good time to accept that, on this occasion you are wrong, and that the many other posters including MarkJ (who surely has no axe to grind) are in fact correct. None of us can know everything about everything, and this whole state aid area is one of your blind spots. Not an issue, we’re none of us perfect, let’s move on.

  44. Avatar Deduction

    Who is paying the wages of the increased staff….
    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/10/31/bt-brings-uk-superfast-broadband-rollout-target-forward-from-2015-to-2014.html

    Is that BT out of the 2.5 billion allocated for the rollout of FTTC? If it is how can they still afford to do 66% of the country when they have a new added cost? It sounds like its taken out of the 2.5 billion. SO how can they still afford to do 66%?

    Or am i now going to be told no thats extra BT are spending on staff to rollout FTTC/P, in which case the budget for fibre was never 2.5 billion in the first place (that budget was for everything not just cabinets but staff to do the job, cabling, any digging etc, wasnt it not?), if they can afford to spend more to get the rollout complete.

    As is usual BT maths both direct from the company, those within it and its supporters makes no sense.

    Things do not add up no matter how many times a multi nick poster trys to insist they do.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      This is not relevant to the many unanswered questions posed by me and others above. Let’s see you deal with those first before diverting into new areas please.

  45. Avatar Deduction

    You have no questions above, you can not even show where the 2.5 billion BT promise and what you think has gone/going on cabinets is actually going.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      As posted above, not relevant to the questions posed of you. Suggest you start by showing the deployments in London, Edinburgh, Chelmsford, Cardiff and Basingstoke have already all received public funds.

  46. Avatar Deduction

    PS couldnt they have left you disconnected for another week due to the flooding in your parts, it was nice for a few days not seeing you, your telecom engineer and somerset ids on here.
    Silly little troll!

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      Given the misery flooding can bring, you’ve obviously never experienced it yourself or you would not make such an idiotic comment.

  47. Avatar Deduction

    Misery??? For residents near you i doubt it was that hard. In fact probably a pleasure at least dealing with something less of a PITA than you are.

  48. Avatar New_Londoner

    @Deduction
    As you’re unwilling, unable or just incapable of addressing the real points raised I suggest we close this dialogue.

    Let’s hope you never have to experience problems like flooding first-hand, as you’d quickly realise what an absurd idea it is to use in such a pathetic manner, and really shows you up as a very shallow human being.

  49. Avatar Deduction

    You have no point, you never have. As shown in even more recent news items BT figures are nonsense. Demonstrated not only by myself but 3 others. The expenditure figures are a load of carp and so are the coverage figures.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @deduction
      ….Meanwhile back to the point, good to know that you still cannot show any evidence of public funding having been paid already in any of the areas listed.

  50. Avatar Deduction

    You have not listed any area not subject to public investment.

    You have not even listed an area which has full (IE 100%) FTTC coverage be it through BTs own funding or public investment.

    The reason you cant is because none exist.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      So still no evidence of public funds being provided towards the cost of FTTC/P deployments to date in any of London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Chelmsford or Basingstoke then? No idea why you’ve suddenly introduced 100% coverage into the equation as this wasn’t raised earlier, looks like another red herring to avoid answering the question again.

      Just provide links to show public money being paid already in each location please.

  51. Avatar Deduction

    Ill let you get back to your daydreams that BT have FTTC available to 10 million premises now and have fully enabled places like Edinburgh with their own cash. LMFAO

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @Deduction
      As above, not relevant to the question in hand so ignored. Just provide links to show public money has been paid already to fund FTTC/P deployments by BT in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Chelmsford and Basingstoke as requested some time ago now.

  52. Avatar Deduction

    Edinburgh has had EU cash (As i pointed out to you in a story last year) and is getting the new Urban delivery funding also.

    Cardiff and much of wales is subject to this cash…
    http://wales.gov.uk/topics/businessandeconomy/broadbandandict/broadband/?lang=en

    Chelmsford does not have 100% coverage and is subject to this…
    http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5207-the-cities-allowed-to-enter-the-next-round-of-urban-broadband-funding-announced.html
    in which to enable it

    London ive been over a million times with you.

    And basingstoke, dunno why you picked that doesnt look like even 50% of it is enabled…
    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=113723393798586269048.000479c34c26feb4e4244

    Any other areas you want to name with a daydream of 100% done at BTs own expense?

  53. Avatar New_Londoner

    @Deduction
    You’ve not answered the question. Firstly 100% coverage was not suggested, nor relevant, it was whether the deployment to date had been funded in part by public money. So secondly the urban broadband fund is not relevant as none of this as been provided to the cities to date, let alone spent with suppliers, as would be the case with most areas for BDUK money too.

    So feel free to provide links for each of the five towns or cities listed, none of those offered so far supports your statement that no deployments have taken place without some public money.

  54. Avatar New_Londoner

    @Deduction
    Two months since your wild and unproven claims. Just another delusion then as you’ve still not managed to unearth any links to substantiate what you said. Let’s remember, simply repeating something often does not make it true, no matter how fervently it is expressed.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £16.80 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Post Office £20.90 (*37.00)
    Avg. Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £21.95 (*36.00)
    Avg. Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • SSE £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2587)
  2. FTTP (2363)
  3. FTTC (1701)
  4. Building Digital UK (1645)
  5. Politics (1490)
  6. Openreach (1468)
  7. Business (1288)
  8. FTTH (1169)
  9. Statistics (1131)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1087)
  11. Fibre Optic (994)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (949)
  13. Wireless Internet (947)
  14. 4G (942)
  15. Virgin Media (892)
  16. EE (617)
  17. Sky Broadband (616)
  18. TalkTalk (596)
  19. Vodafone (557)
  20. 3G (424)
New Forum Topics
»
Latency with IDNet
Author: BigAlbert
»
Zen latency
Author: BigAlbert
»
Online gaming / ping
Author: BigAlbert
»
»
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact