Home
 » Editorial Article » 
Sponsored

Politics and the Top 4 Myths of a Delayed UK Superfast Broadband Rollout

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 (9:53 am) - Score 874
fibre optic broadband cable deployment HYPEROPTIC ONLY

Many positive things came out of the NAO and Public Accounts Committee’s recent efforts to pick apart BT and the government’s Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) programme (here) but not all were helpful. In particular there are four myths about the projects aims and delays that continue to persist despite being largely inaccurate.

The reason for writing this short piece is simply because we keep seeing the same statements and claims being regurgitated by newspapers and others. As a result our purpose here is to clarify the four most common misconceptions about BDUK, some of which only came into being after the NAO and PAC gave birth to them.

1. BDUK Was Setup to Help Rural Areas Get Superfast Broadband

Semi-wrong. Certainly the BDUK scheme will help many rural areas get access to a faster connection but its original aim was to make superfast (25Mbps+) speeds available to “90% of people in each local authority area” by 2015 (the date itself tended to vary between March 2015 and the end of 2015) and yet most of what people would consider to be truly rural (countryside) actually exists in that last 10% (note: Population and Geographic coverage are two very different things).

In other words the 10-20% coverage gap that BDUK was designed to fill, which exists between how far the commercial sector can push fibre optic based broadband (roughly around 70%-80% coverage between BT, KC and Virgin Media etc. – depending upon whose statistics you believe) and the extra bit to reach 90% through BDUK, mostly appears to consist of sub-urban areas, larger towns and big villages.

Now of course the target has recently been lifted to 95% but, in our opinion, it wasn’t originally setup with rural areas at the forefront; no matter what the politicians might have said.

2. Areas Helped by BDUK Would Never Have Gotten Superfast Broadband

Semi-wrong. It’s arguably more accurate to say that most of the related “intervention areas” under BDUK, where commercial investment has so far failed to reach, might not have gotten superfast broadband for another 5 years+ had the investment of state aid not existed.

In fact some people argue that many of the upgrades would have still happened anyway and that BDUK simply helped the work to be conducted sooner. BT’s £2.5bn commercial rollout of FTTC/P, which will complete next spring 2014, expects to cover 66% of the UK. But it’s our view that many of the neglected areas would still have been big enough to push that figure well beyond 66% over future years (i.e. without BDUK money).

Certainly BDUK will help to bring the service into many areas that truly might not have benefitted but others would probably still have been upgraded; it always comes down to a question of time, money and demand.

3. The Original Goal was 100% UK Superfast Broadband Coverage

Wrong. It was stated during the Public Accounts Committee event that the government’s original ambition was to cover 100% of the United Kingdom with superfast broadband and that they have since scaled this back to 90%, which was news to us and many others who have been watching this industry on a daily basis for many years. At no time has any of the current coalition (Conservative/LibDem) or previous Labour government’s set an official target for “100%” coverage of superfast broadband.

In fact the figure of 90% was the current coalitions government’s first official target and, prior to the 2010 General Election, the Conservatives only talked very generally about delivering “100Mbps broadband across most of the population” by 2017 (here). The previous Labour government was arguably even more ambiguous and made reference to an ambition of “making possible superfast broadband for the vast majority of Britain” (here), though they never defined “superfast“. The LibDems didn’t really have much in the way of a clearly defined broadband policy.

It’s possible that some people could have been confused by either the 2Mbps Universal Service Commitment (USC) or Europe’s aim to make superfast broadband (30Mbps+) available to every household by 2020. But otherwise the UK itself has never had such a firm 100% target. Words like “most” and “vast majority” do not equal 100%.

4. BDUK is Delayed by 22 Months (Roughly 2 Years)

Semi-wrong. Ever since the National Audit Office (NAO) remarked in July 2013 that BDUK was running 2 years late (here) we’ve been repeatedly subjected to comments like this one in major newspapers and other media outlets, “Ministers this summer pushed the goal of 95% of UK properties getting “superfast” broadband back to 2017.” No they didn’t.

Firstly you can’t delay the target of 95% because it was only set at the end of June 2013 and also represents an expanded reach from the prior goal of 90% (here). Admittedly BDUK is running around a year or so later than it should have been, mostly due to EU competition concerns and UK administrative delays, but in truth it’s not as far off the mark as some people might assume.

Officially the government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has said, “around 88 per cent of the country will have access to superfast broadband by December 2015, with an estimated 90 per cent getting [fixed line] superfast coverage by early 2016“. In other words it will be about 2% off the original 90% target by the end of 2015, which actually doesn’t seem all that bad given the huge scale and complications of the project.

In fact some groups, such as telecoms analyst Point Topic, optimistically anticipate that the government might actually exceed 90% by the end of 2015 (here). But take such predictions with a huge pinch of salt because estimates and real-world experiences often differ significantly. However the point remains that the situation doesn’t look nearly so bad as some have claimed.

Now we do want to stress that this is not an article intended to diagnose the rights or wrongs of BDUK itself, which is perhaps a far from perfect approach to solving the problem of national broadband performance and coverage (it would take a very long time to delve into all of that). We have merely sought to highlight four of the seemingly most common misconceptions about the scheme and hope that some of you will find this insight useful.

Leave a Comment
10 Responses
  1. You must have been reading the same recent coverage as I have. There is a sense that because it was said at PAC that it is 100% true. As always the devil is in the detail behind the vague wording often used, and the inability for PAC to delve into the actual detail rather than exist in a soundbite politics arena.

    Have extensively researched the 100% versus 90% and there is some phrases that could be construed as making the 100%, but the reality of them is they are talking about USC rather than superfast.

    At the end of the day, if all the Government wants to invest is £530m it will not get 100% at high speeds. That has been clear from day 1, so it is a surprise to find politicians expressing surprise, maybe they are looking to the geek vote in rural areas for 2015?

    • “You must have been reading the same recent coverage as I have”

      Yes it’s been kind of hard to ignore, every time I read about something government / broadband related one of the above four areas of contention seems to always crop up.

  2. Avatar Phil

    Forget the 25+ Mbps speed. Look at google fiber 1Gb/s downstream and upsteam. UK is well behind and in danger missing out the leading of 1Gb/s Super Fiber.

    • Are we missing out on Gigabit? People forget that you can get Gigabit if you are willing to move, how many in the US want to move to Kansas City?

    • Avatar Roberto

      You seem to be a bit behind with your news there Andrew…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsK3TRmkJIQ

      Texas this year, correct me if i am wrong but second only to Alaska that is the Largest State in the good old USA.

      So errr no nobody will is moving to Kansas as its going to deployed in the country’s largest state anyway.

      California is rumoured for 2015/16 though google are remaining tight lipped on that for the moment.

      It would make sense though, California, the third only place in the world automated cars are actually legal (The others being Florida and Nevada where google also tested) and that date being when they hope to go into full production Google can have its Skynet fibre controlling the traffic flow in Americas 3rd largest state also.

      So errr yeah their product is coming to both the second and third largest states in America.

    • Avatar Roberto

      Correction that is 2014 for Texas not “this year”.

  3. Avatar RevK

    It is worth noting that these targets are always a tad vague anyway. You can get fast “internet access” anywhere in the UK that you can see the sky, for a price that is not too unreasonable, and AFAIK latency has never been in the targets. You can get 10Gb/s fibre pretty much anywhere if you are prepared to pay for the dig, and I don’t think price was in the targets. Unless they start pinning down not only speed, but latency, packet loss and price, then you do not really pin anything down and one could say we already have availabilitity for 100% of UK.

    • Affordability is a factor in the targets, one of several, and even latency got a brief mention in the 2010 strategy but we haven’t seen much of that since. I think the price originally had to be no more than £30 per month to be considered “affordable”.

  4. Avatar Michael

    In looking at point 2 the concept of clawback was meant to handle the question of timing in the market, so that if take-up exceeds plans within the intervention time frame, then the money gets re-purposed to extend the coverage footprint – but probably not closing the gap to 100% at “superfast” whether that is 24mbps+ or 30Mbps+.

    If the take-up persists at only 20% then there is a different opportunity/issue that may need addressing in particular areas which all organisations whether public or private may wish to handle

  5. Avatar New_Londoner

    @MarkJ
    Has BT responded to the Public Accounts Committee since the hearing? If so, would be good to see the response.

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 (2589)
  2. FTTP (2365)
  3. FTTC (1701)
  4. Building Digital UK (1645)
  5. Politics (1490)
  6. Openreach (1468)
  7. Business (1288)
  8. FTTH (1170)
  9. Statistics (1132)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1087)
  11. Fibre Optic (994)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (950)
  13. Wireless Internet (947)
  14. 4G (942)
  15. Virgin Media (893)
  16. EE (618)
  17. Sky Broadband (617)
  18. TalkTalk (597)
  19. Vodafone (559)
  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