» ISP News » 

BSG Claims UK Homes to Only Need 19Mbps Broadband Speeds by 2023

Tuesday, November 5th, 2013 (2:23 pm) - Score 1,928

The Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), which advises the Government on broadband matters, has published a new report that claims to outline a “new way for measuring and forecasting demand for bandwidth in UK homes“. The research concludes that the “median household” will require bandwidth of 19Mbps (Megabits per second) by 2023.

At present the Government’s Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) scheme aims for 95% of UK people be within reach of a fixed line superfast broadband (25Mbps+) service by 2017 (rising to 99% with wireless and mobile solutions come 2018) and it’s investing £1.2bn to support that. Meanwhile the EU requires every member state to deliver a speed of at least 30Mbps to 100% of homes by 2020.

But what will people actually need? There is often a disconnect between what such services can delivery and what homes tend to use or require, which typically varies due to factors like family size and the quality of streaming video etc. The BSG has simply constructed a way to model this.

Pamela Learmonth, CEO of the BSG, said:

In publishing this report we are not presenting a magic number for desired bandwidth speeds one decade out. Rather, we are demonstrating that to facilitate an informed policy debate around whether broadband infrastructure in the UK will enable consumers to do what they want over time, then we need to develop a better evidence base.

Like any good maths student, we have not simply given a number, but shown our working. We want to use this to develop a formative and evidence based discussion on future bandwidth needs and what this means for wider broadband policy.”

The report concluded that 50% of households will have a demand of 19Mbps+ by 2023, while in that same year 10% will need 30Mbps+ and the top 1% will seek 35Mbps. In addition the BSG also found that the median upstream demand would grow from 1.1Mbps now to just 2.4Mbps by 2023.

Extract from the BSG Report

A 2023 median demand of 19Mbps may seem low, but needs to be seen in the context of the continuing benefits of video compression, and the fact that 64% of households only contain one or two people. Consider two people both surfing, both watching their own HD TV stream while each having a video call. Even this rather aggressive (and rare) use case only requires 15Mbps in 2023.

However the BSG admits that its model “is dependent on a large number of assumptions“, which might become particularly fragile over the longer 10-year forecast period; as always there’s no easy way to account for the introduction of innovative new services.

For example, services like 4K TV, the potentially huge demand from Xbox One and PlayStation 4 owners (both upstream and download) and so forth are always tricky to understand before they’ve had time to exist in the market.

Extract from the BSG Report

The report also highlights a number of sensitivities to the model results which could change anticipated requirements. These include changing user expectations for factors such as download speeds and notably, reducing the time one would expect a software download, such as a console game, and upload of files to take.

For example, in significantly reducing the base case assumption of 10 minutes waiting time to 2.5 minutes, then 16% of households require 83Mbps. Reducing the waiting time further would quickly take demand over 100Mbps for those households.

In other words, the speed you’d expected to need depends on how long they think you’d be happy to wait. Indeed the model can be amended by anyone to change its assumptions, which in fairness are already quite aggressive and do take account of 4K video streaming etc.

In fact one of the most aggressive models, which does factor 4K usage, suggests that all but 1% of homes might be happy with 71Mbps in 2023; it all depends on how the market develops and how long you want to wait while something is downloaded etc.

But we must not forget that access and infrastructure capability remain the core concerns. In an ideal world 100% should have access to a technology that can deliver for the most aggressive models as well as the most conservative or median ones.

BSG Domestic Demand for Bandwidth (PDF)

Leave a Comment
104 Responses
  1. SlowLincolnshire says:

    “UK Homes to Only Need 19Mbps Broadband Speeds by 2023”

    What planet are they on??? Bunch of………………..

  2. DanielM says:

    19Mbps is slow. my DSL gives me that. we need 40Mbps+ both ways

    1. Ignitionnet says:

      Our 2 person household, 3 when my daughter is here, manages on less than 2Mb.

      There’s no way we *need* symmetrical 40Mb.

      Nice to have to get things done faster? Sure. Essential? Nah.

  3. New_Londoner says:

    Good to see this report, hopefully it will stimulate a debate about what bandwidth is needed and why, ideally with clarity on assumptions being made. Predicting the future is not an exact science but better to have the debate than automatically assume we will all * need * Gigabit services without any indication why.

    1. gerarda says:

      For once I agree with New_Londoner,although I think the report understates the growth in demand as a sort of Parkinson’s law will apply. The more bandwidth available the more will get used. For example the report quoted an average web page is now 4mb. When I first started commissioning websites you were aiming for a fraction of this as 4mb would take several minutes to download.

  4. Ignitionnet says:

    Key word here is ‘require’ of course, rather than ‘desire’. The current figure is around the 7Mb mark.

    This does actually make perfect sense. H.265 and ongoing codec improvements have substantially reduced bandwidth requirements for video.

    That said I suspect that it’s not going to be accurate. Depends on the bandwidth requirements of 4K and the next-gen games consoles.

  5. We run an ISP and offer customers a range of speed options up to 100 Mbps.
    The most common download speed option we provide is 30 Mbps.
    So customers who sign up to 30 Mb/s will more often than not, get 30 Mb/s.

    It’s very rare that we see customer’s bandwidth ever reach 100% of this when we take a look at their daily usage (averages every 5 minutes). In fact, most often their maximum median bandwidth usage at peak times is less than 10 Mb/s.
    Hence we can over sell bandwidth which is what every ISP does (for DSL type customers not leased lines) and still maintain a very high quality network experience.

    The BSG report highlights what perhaps most consumers fail to realise, that you do not need 40 Mbps or 80 Mb/s or 100 Mb/s or whatever your ISP are trying to push to you. People will simply be paying more than they need to for those off occasions they need to download a file in 1 minute as opposed to waiting 2.
    As more media is streamed rather than downloaded (iPlayer, Netflix, Spotify, Sky Go etc) this will also play a part into customer requirements.
    Netflix are suggesting that even a 4k stream will only need 15 Mb/s, and 1080p Netflix uses 8 Mb/s today.

    I’m not suggesting that they won’t need more bandwidth in the future, but the facts today suggest most people don’t need crazy high double digit Mb/s of bandwidth today.

    The fact the UK broadband market relies so heavily on xDSL technologies; limited by distance, wire quality, environment, interference, means that we all need to aim higher just to reach this ‘minimum threshold’. This is where there is a greater problem, especially for the last 10% of the land area (not population).

    There will be some people who need to download a multi GB file in a few minutes rather than waiting for 1/2 hour, but the majority of residential customers will do okay on low double digital Mb/s, even with the entire family online.

    This somewhat links into data allowances as well. I believe that there will be a tipping point soon where ISPs will have to change the way they package their services. Unlimited data allowances at ‘£3 per month’ are not going to be sustainable if these ISPs need to invest and continue to provide a great network whilst customers start to do more online, and the quality of the services starts to increase (4K TV, downloading PS4/XBOX games etc). ISPs will eventually have to focus on something other than ‘buying customers’ if they wish to reduce churn ad continue to provide an excellent network.
    This area is slightly more murky, but public opinion has been clear that unlimited options with gigabyte limits in their FUP don’t work. Industry has reacted with ‘truly unlimited services’, but now with £3 per month unlimited deals, it’s less clear how this is sustainable!


    1. TheFacts says:

      Do we need to be too concerned about the last 10% of land area, what’s the population?

    2. MikeW says:

      The question raised by @TheFacts intrigued me, so I researched and worked it out – in 2 different ways.

      Considering the UK by “Land Use”, the figures show 10% is used in urban areas and in development, 75% is used by agriculture, while Forestry accounts for 13%.

      There’s going to be almost no-one living in the land used for forestry, so we can expect there to be near zero premises in the final 13% of the UK’s land area.

      Then I considered it in political terms – by looking up the statistics for the least-dense council districts in the UK (and in England, Scotland, Wales and NI individually). The results are:

      – In England, the 7 sparsest council districts accounts for 10% of the area, and 1% of England’s population.
      – In Scotland, the 1 sparsest council district accounts for 32% of the area, and 4% of Scotland’s population.
      – In Wales, the 1 sparsest council district accounts for 25% of the area, and 4% of Wales’ population.
      – In NI, the 1 sparsest council district accounts for 14% of the area, and 3% of NI’s population.

      – In the UK overall, the 1 sparsest council district (the Highlands) accounts for 11% of the area, and 0.3% of the combined UK population with 220,000 people (which probably means less than 100,000 premises).

      [Most figures from Wikipedia or ONS, largely using 2011 census info, but otherwise from within the period of 2000-2011]

      I think the best way of considering the final 10% of the UK land area is to see it as uninhabited forest, with no need for fixed-line broadband.

      Even if you consider it in the political sense, these sparse districts are still made up of population centres that will support decent broadband delivery. Even the Highlands, as part of the RoS project spending BDUK funds, is aiming at 85% coverage of that 220k population.

  6. GNewton says:

    These forecasts are based on average figures, not useful in a real world scenario. For our small business, current VDSL technology would be hopelessly useless, not that it will ever be available in our area in the first place, just saying.

    A better approach would be to make needed broadband products available everywhere, for customers willing to pay, and to stop the taxpayer-funded VDSL postcode lottery.

    1. TheFacts says:

      And products are available everywhere now.

    2. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: Facts please! Please provide sources for your information, starting with where the final 20% get their nextgen broadband service from.

      More than 20% of VDSL lines are less than nextgen 30Mbps speeds. Add to this number the total lack of nextgen landline based broadband for the final 10%.

      Not even leased lines (which are beyond this tpic of discussion anyway, they are not a broadband service) are available everywhere in the UK.

    3. TheFacts says:

      As you identify, leased lines. Where are they not available?

    4. FibreFred says:

      Leased line not a broadband service? Of course they are!

    5. GNewton says:

      @FibreFred: You really need to get some facts before posting here. For a starter, try this: http://www.hso.co.uk/leased-lines/leased-line-broadband/leased-line-broadband-does-not-exist-comparing-leased-lines-v-broadband/

    6. FibreFred says:

      lol, great source. Try this instead:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

      Or this see under the section broadband:-


      Yes we have leased line listed ^

      A leased line is just another physical medium that can be used to connect you to the Internet (amongst other things)

      Unless you believe you cannot access the Internet via a leased line?

    7. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: Have you ever run a business? Most likely not, otherwise you wouldn’t be seriously proclaiming leased line as a viable product, anywhere available in the UK.

      Lets stick to the facts, and to the topic of broadband. Clearly, nextgen broadband is not available everywhere in the UK. Whether you like it or not, 1.2 Billion of taxpayer’s money has been spent so far because nextgen broadband is not available everwhere, and because VDSL without the taxpayer’s donations would not even be a commercially viable option for at least one 3rd of the country.

    8. JNeuhoff says:

      @GNewton: You may have noticed that FibreFred is a hopeless case, always ready to defend his beloved BT. He is being ripped off by BT, because he pays for a 80Mbps copper VDSL service, but only gets 55Mbps, and doesn’t even see anything wrong about this. He frequently tends to show off his “I’m All Right Jack” attitude with his beloved copper VDSL.

    9. Gadget says:

      @GNewton – are you serious? “Have you ever run a business? Most likely not, otherwise you wouldn’t be seriously proclaiming leased line as a viable product, anywhere available in the UK.”

      I’d suggest that leased lines are exactly what are used by businesses across the country, otherwise why do BT, Virgin and several other companies sell them? And yes they are available virtually anywhere, the caveat (like NGA) is the cost. The issue has always been that for Small and SoHo businesses it is a substantial cost.

    10. GNewton says:

      @Gadget: “the caveat (like NGA) is the cost. The issue has always been that for Small and SoHo businesses it is a substantial cost.”

      That’s why I said that leased lines are not a viable option for many businesses, except for bigger companies.

    11. FibreFred says:

      JNeuhoff, why am I “alright jack” where have I defended VDSL or BT in this article? Same old personal digs…..

      I can barely believe I’m reading that leased lines are not viable for businesses 🙂

    12. JNeuhoff says:

      @FibreFred: Freddy, where did I ever say leased lines are not viable for businesses?

      I have followed this forum thread with interest, and if I understand it correctly, GNewton explained it in his reply to Gadget that leased lines are only useful for bigger companies. I think he’s right with this assesment. Stop distorting facts here, read the posts!

      And yes, no offense, your attitude in promoting taxpayer-subsidised copper VDSL as the nextgen broadband salvation will be seen as bragging to quite a few posters here who happen to be on the loosing end of the postcode gamble.

    13. FibreFred says:

      JNeuhoff I think you may have got confused as to which name you’ve posted what under. I was replying to the “user” GNewton regarding leased line.

      “GNewton” said:-

      “otherwise you wouldn’t be seriously proclaiming leased line as a viable product, anywhere available in the UK.”

      and then changed his mind (backpeddling I call it) to – except for bigger companies. I’m sure he’ll change his mind again.

    14. Karen says:

      “stop the taxpayer-funded VDSL postcode lottery.”

      Agreed no idea why a single individual then went off on a leased line tangent and then agreed with itself.

  7. on this planet says:

    SlowLincolnshire and DanielM seems to have fallen in the trap of extrapolating from what they need/want into what everyone needs. It looks like this BSG report looked at the full range of different users. If we base government policy and subsidy on what the most intensive few need we will waste billions £s.
    By the way the 10 minutes waiting time refers to a user being bandwidth constrained for 10 minutes a month i.e. not a lot.

  8. Slow Somerset says:

    @TheFacts Do we need to be too concerned about the last 10% of land area, what’s the population?.

    Why should anyone be left out, that attitude is just Selfish, just a case of I am alright Jack.

    1. TheFacts says:

      Realistic. To put into context what’s the population in it? For broadband there is satellite as a cost effective solution.

    2. FibreFred says:

      I personally don’t think anyone should be left out but I don’t think it should be fibre for these very hard to reach areas that are just not viable

    3. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: You lack of broadband knowledge is quite apparent, otherwise you wouldn’t post half truths here. You are not seriously regarding Satellite as a useful broadband substitute, are you?

      Here is a fact: The speed of light is no more than 186,000 miles per second. Ever heard about the poor latency when using satellite-based services?

    4. FibreFred says:

      And how does poor latency affect your ability to web browse, or fill in web based forms or upload/download large files or watch iPlayer, movies etc etc

      You are just using broad brushstrokes there, Sat connections can be fine and are fine for many services. Are they any good for VoIP? No are they any good for online gaming ? No but they work great for many other general web services

      You can’t just discount Sat connections just like that, they have their use and would be suitable for many users

    5. GNewton says:

      FibreFred, you sure look like an example of Neo-Luddism here. Have you ever used Satellite broadband for a longer period? We have, in the past, and I can assure you it is not a useful broadband replacement!

    6. TheFacts says:

      The reason for saying satellite was for the final 10% land area which cannot be served at an acceptable price to government/ISP/user. Nobody has yet said how many properties this is. If someone is saying FTTP is only solution for every UK property, however remote, then would they please estimate the cost. And when the fibre is being installed to a remote hill top building why not put in mains gas at the same time…

    7. FibreFred says:

      GNewton, you are using your own “personal” experience and applying it to the masses, great mistake.

      Just like your leased line isn’t a form of broadband

    8. GNewton says:

      TheFacts should really stick to some facts here. If he’s so concerned about the fibre costs, as he claims he is, then he should also have been concerned about the wasting of all the taxpayer’s money (1.2 Billion at the moment) for publicly funded VDSL.

      As regards Satellite: It is obvious that Freddy has never used one, as can be seen from his remarks on this subject. Freddy doesn’t even understand the difference between a leased line and broadband line. I guess he never had used a leased line either, unlike us, in the past.

    9. Stephane says:

      The last 10% are not the last 10% on land area but the last 10% of the population (far more than 10% of the land….). So it’s roughly affecting 6.5m people

    10. TheFacts says:

      Wessex said ‘the last 10% of the land area’. Clearly 10% of the population is very different.

      There is then a decision how about what subsidy should be given to eg. the last 1%.

    11. Karen says:

      Most satellite services do not reach and exceed 30Mbps which is the new standard to be deemed super fast.

    12. MikeW says:

      I posted a response to Wessex’s “10% of land area” in detail, but the summary is that either:

      – No-one lives there; 13% of the UK is used for forestry
      – 0.3% of the UK lives there; the Highlands alone amount to 10% of land area with a population density of 8.6 people per sq km. That’s 220,000 people (where 60,000 live in Inverness), and is probably less than 100,000 premises.

      I think the “final 10% of land” it is best thought of as being uninhabited forest, but at worst we are considering it to be up to 0.2% of the UK population.

  9. dragoneast says:

    They say they want to start an evidence based discussion. Good. The trouble is that virtually every commentator and expert has already formulated their conclusion, as Mark demonstrates in his comments. And in that case we’ll only be inclined to give credence to the decision-based evidence which supports our conclusions, which is the modern way. I’m rather old-fashioned and prefer evidence-based decisions. Otherwise you tend to waste both time and money, in trying to get to where you want to go. The usual British “muddle and get no-where”.

    1. FibreFred says:

      Agreed, an attitude of “we need 1 Gig up/down – why – because its 2023!!!” means nothing. Weren’t we all supposed to be using flying cars by now, those of us that haven’t moved to the moon of course…

    2. Karen says:

      The way you argue with some people here and your abusive tone to them I am sure many wished you lived on another planet with your flying car.

      Oh and i am female before you start your predictable nonsense again.

  10. zemadeiran says:

    The BSG is being extremely short sighted when it comes to throughput. What everyone seems to have missed is that they are stating 19mbps+ as a baseline figure.

    This of course does in no way take into account the exponential growth in both usage requirements and the technological developments which will undoubtedly happen.

    2023? Think about a decade and what can develop during such a time period. We are moving forward at such an ever increasing rate that the 19mbps+ figure is completely laughable.


  11. JNeuhoff says:

    “waste both time and money, in trying to get to where you want to go. The usual British “muddle and get no-where”.”

    A good description of the BT-BDUK cartel!

    1. TheFacts says:

      How would you spend £15M in Essex and what would it achieve?

    2. JNeuhoff says:

      I have already answered your question countless times on various forum threads, but you don’t want to be confronted with the facts.

    3. GNewton says:

      Here is a question for TheFacts: How would you accomplish a county-wide nextgen broadband coverage WITHOUT loosing taxpayer’s money?

    4. TheFacts says:

      @JN – I don’t remember any specific proposals from you. Specifically with the existing amounts of money available.

    5. FibreFred says:

      You’ve as much chance of that as getting the same out of Cyberdoyle, always ready to stick the boot in, no actual feasible alternative.

  12. Slackshoe says:

    19mbps is not going to cut it in 10 years time.

    10 years ago, I was on a 500kbps connection and that was fine for my needs at the time. Eventually this was upgraded and I could get the maximum my line would handle, which was 3 meg. I struggled with buffering videos and slow downloads for about 5 years. I’m not a heavy user but I don’t really like to wait for things when I do want to download or stream something.

    Now I’m on a 30 meg connection. Maybe I’m spoiled, but anything less would be unacceptable now. Everything I do online is becoming more bandwidth heavy. I find myself making use of cloud services more.

    My bandwidth demands have increased 60-fold in the last 10 years, so I don’t know how they can possibly think 19 meg will be enough.

    1. Ignitionnet says:

      Again desires and needs are different things. These guys are talking about needs.

      Trust me, I could have happily said that I demand 100Mb as that’s what I had. I’m typing this from sub-2Mb ADSL.

      7Mb would support most of what I *need* without my having to make adjustments to my usage patterns beyond allowing longer for downloads, sub-2Mb has forced behaviour changes.

      Cutting you to 19Mb things would take longer but you could still do everything you do now.

    2. zemadeiran says:

      You are wrong,

      I cannot teleport with less then 10 trillion mbps…

  13. Stephane says:

    19Mbps broadband, that’s perfect to go with the 640Kb of my PC (famously no one will never ever need more than that).

    Obviously nothing to do with the fact that major members of BSG are still investing in copper and now pretend that the BDUK (our) money they invest in an antiquated technology will last for at least 10 years.

    Of course once the whole BDUK money will be spent, the same people will publish (I bet around 2018) a new document justifying starting charging us again for FTTP deployment… as we would need at least 200Mbps by 2023.

    1. TheFacts says:

      So are you proposing the government should fund a FTTP rollout? The current scheme gets the core network close to many premises so helps with future FTTP connections.

    2. Karen says:

      “The current scheme gets the core network close to many premises so helps with future FTTP connections.”

      Define what you mean by close and many.

    3. GNewton says:

      TheFacts is making many assumptions here. He is not talking about fibre broadband, but VDSL services. He claims he’s against the goverment spending so much money on FTTP, yet at the same time he believes its perfectly OK to take money from taxpayers (1.2 Billion so far), even if many of these hard working taxpayers will never see a nextgen service themselves, simply because they happen to be on the wrong end of the postcode gamble created by the BDUK-BT cartel. More than 20% of VDSL lines aren’t superfast (30 Mbps), only 10% will be faster than 80 Mbps.

    4. FibreFred says:

      The Facts is referring to close as in the fibre aggregation point which is usually quite close to the customer PCP cabinet, so in terms of close within around 500m for many and within 1Km of almost everyone.

      In terms of many, everyone that can get a FTTC service. He’s right it brings the fibre ever closer to the customers home, not a bad thing at all.

      MikeW seems to have it bang on with his view, that due to regulations and fear of long ROI BT are building out to the home over stages, a very big stage is FTTC which brings fibre all the way from the exchange to within 1km of the premise (for most a lot closer) then the next stage will no doubt be to bring it to the pole.

    5. TheFacts says:

      What about the taxpayers who aren’t hard working?

    6. gerarda says:

      According to this http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html 10% of premises nationwide are more that 1k from a cabinet. It BDUK areas it is probably a much higher percentage.

    7. FibreFred says:

      gerarda was there a point to your posting? I did say almost everyone within 1km

      90% would account for the majority however you look at it

    8. gerarda says:

      yes because as usual national stats/assumptions are being used in a debate on BDUK areas.

    9. Karen says:

      “The Facts is referring to close as in the fibre aggregation point which is usually quite close to the customer PCP cabinet, so in terms of close within around 500m for many and within 1Km of almost everyone.

      In terms of many, everyone that can get a FTTC service. He’s right it brings the fibre ever closer to the customers home, not a bad thing at all.”

      What has all that got to do with BDUK funding which was supposed to be for uneconomically viable areas, rather than those already close to cabinets. The “many” which BDUK funding should have been spent on have not had it spent on them.

    10. FibreFred says:

      You asked

      “Define what you mean by close and many.”

      My answer was what I assume Thefacts was talking about, I don’t recall there being any other words other than

      “Define what you mean by close and many.”

    11. MikeW says:


      “What has all that got to do with BDUK funding which was supposed to be for uneconomically viable areas, rather than those already close to cabinets.”

      Simple – BDUK funding is taking FTTC (as unvectored VDSL2) to more cabinets, which are those in the intervention areas. The jump from 67% coverage to 90% (in 2015/16) and 95% ( in 2017) will be achieved, almost entirely, by the installation of such new cabinets – and not by any magic changes to existing (commercial) cabinets.

      The people that benefit immediately from this are those who can get SFBB speeds from these upgraded cabinets – ie those within (roughly) 1km of the cabinet. But everyone on the cabinet benefits in the future because the fibre spine (and the “aggregation point” they connect to) is now a lot closer to their property.

      The question here isn’t how many people benefit now from VDSL2 speeds (ie those within the 1km distance). Instead, it is how many benefit because the fibre spine has been brought closer – and the answer is that pretty much everyone on an upgraded cabinet benefits from that.

      It is therefore more than the 23% who gain SFBB speeds through BDUK.

      So what proportion of cabinets are going to get included?

      If we believe the usual statistics, then the average of 90% of lines are within SFBB distance of their cabinet applies. And we know that BDUK is targeting 90% coverage of SFBB.

      Combining those two statements mean we have to expect that, after BDUK, *every single cabinet* will have to have been upgraded. It is the only way to achieve the 90% coverage.

      Does that mean that *everyone* benefits because fibre is closer? It seems to.

      EO lines play a part here, but we know less. Some people say that EO lines amount to 10% of the UK too. Reaching 90% (and later, 95%) requires almost all of these to have cabinets added to enable FTTC – which seems to be a process restricted (by cost) to BDUK projects alone.

      So the answer to “Define what you mean by many and close” comes from four directions:
      1. Everyone connected to a cabinet upgraded commercially
      2. Everyone connected to a cabinet upgraded within BDUK
      3. Everyone connected to an EO line that has a cabinet added within BDUK
      4. Of course, those who get FTTP as their commercial or BDUK solution

      The only people I can envisage who do not gain are those on long EO lines which are not converted into FTTC cabinets, and also happen to be nowhere near an aggregation point (supplying other properties) that they can use.

    12. gerarda says:

      @Mike K replace “everyone” with “most” and you are probably right. How much “most” is we don’t know as apparently BT do not even tell Ofcom who cannot receive a service from an upgraded cabinet. Or at least that was Ofcom’s excuse for including our village in NGA coverage stats

    13. Karen says:

      Yes again he seems to be unable to define what he means with his statements of “many”, “most” etc.

  14. By debating with @TheFacts you’re playing his game. His games lead nowhere. Why waste your energy?

    1. Karen says:

      I find it curious as to how fred/the facts thinks and why he feels the need to agree with himself continually. As to debating, well there is not anything to debate it is quite clear he speaks nonsense especially after the last survey that showed nicely how horrid Openreach are.

    2. FibreFred says:

      That’s where you are falling foul “Karen” I am not the Facts so if you are referring to me agreeing with the TheFacts which I sometimes do we are not the same person.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, as I’ve said countless times I only post as FibreFred unlike others….

      I don’t particular care if you believe me or not.

      @Dunkerton, TheFacts is just asking valid questions that most people can’t or do not want to answer, this site is full of people telling others how its being done wrong but don’t offer up plausible alternatives.

    3. GNewton says:

      @Dunkerton.info: I agree, TheFacts doesn’t always want to know the facts, and often avoids answering my simple questions. And Freddy constantly hails VDSL as a salvation for the UK nextgen broadband scene.

    4. TheFacts says:

      Please ask the questions again and I will answer.

    5. Karen says:

      “Please ask the questions again and I will answer.”

      Why has he got to ask again only for you to not read or answer again?

    6. TheFacts says:

      ‘How would you accomplish a county-wide nextgen broadband coverage WITHOUT loosing taxpayer’s money?’ So the question is should the government fund a full UK fibre roll out and how close to 100%. We need to know the cost.

      If satellite is unacceptable what subsidy/funding should go to the hard to reach?

    7. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: You keep going around in circles, not answering my simple question. To make it a bit simpler for you: Do you know the difference between a long term investment and a donation?

    8. Karen says:

      “If satellite is unacceptable what subsidy/funding should go to the hard to reach?”

      All of it should had gone to hard to reach areas, that was the point of the BDUK and other schemes in their beginning.

      Satellite i assume our government also deem is not an acceptable solution, if it were then satellite ISPs should had been the ones to get all the funding and NOT BT as satellite can reach a far greater percent of the UK than anything the likes of BT, Virgin, Talk Talk etc can either now or previously.

      I imagine it is not an acceptable solution due to cost to the consumer and its inability to consistently deliver over 24Mb which was the original “superfast” goal. To be honest also as it is them funding it and not you their opinion matters more, their decisions though not to spread the wealth and instead give it all to BT who can not and never will deliver to 100% of the country ultimately means some tax payers will be robbed, something you seem quite happy about.

    9. TheFacts says:

      Or will 4G and 5G mean there is no need for a physical connection to remote properties?

    10. TheFacts says:

      Some taxpayers will be robbed. Pathetic statement, unless that includes people who do not use a library but pay for it etc.

    11. Karen says:

      4G and 5G will not be available in the most rural areas. You are lucky to get a mobile signal at all in some places let alone 4G.

      A Library is are available TO ALL TO USE. Hence why it is a PUBLIC service. FTTC as an example though is not a PUBLIC service and is NOT available to many in a rural community.

      I also suggest you leave you house once in a while, nowadays i think you will find to join many Librarys you have to PAY. So in cases like that NO the taxpayer is not continually funding them either.

      Your next all to predictable pointless and pathetic comparison please?

    12. TheFacts says:

      What would be an realistic alternative solution and rollout for the current amount of funding?

    13. Karen says:

      Given BT are so secretive about where they are rolling out when it comes to rural areas and still fail to inform others to avoid overlap in other areas, it is impossible to say who or how much could have equalled or bettered their rollout for the same amount of cash.

      No single area in the UK from what i know actually has firm fixed figures on percents that can take their FTTC service. There certainly is no data published what i know of with regards to what cabinets have been enabled.

      My town is considered enabled by BT and has been for some time, yet i know for a fact over 50% of the town can not have it because they have not enabled all cabinets.

    14. Gadget says:

      you said you know for a fact that 50% of your town cannot get FTTC, which town is it and is there any other superfast provider present in any of the 50%?

    15. Karen says:

      Where i live is none of your concern.

      What providers are available is also irrelevant to the debate. BT classify my town as FTTC enabled, they have only done 50% of cabinets in it. Thus only 50% of the town is FTTC enabled by BT. Me being one of the lucky 50%. END OFF

    16. TheFacts says:

      When an exchange is described as enabled then it does not mean every cabinet is enabled, but then you know that.

      If part of an exchange area has VM then it’s a commercial decision for BT to roll out FTTC, presumably based on the ISPs seeing customers there, similarly with the non VM areas. Any non VM areas are eligible for BDUK funding, but not the VM areas.

    17. Gadget says:


      I am sorry if my question touched a nerve.

      Let me put it this way – in the past there has been confusion and debate about the discontinuity between the number of cabinets enabled for FTTC in an exchange area against the % coverage quoted. Various posts both here and on thinkbroadband.com noted that there average coverage in an exchange area when enabled was around 70% give or take, with some higher and some lower. The disparity occurs because not every cabinet has the same number of customers on and there you can get to that figure by enabling a lower percentage of cabinets, pareto being what it is. The question was to put a name to a potential lower than average coverage exchange.

      I’m not aware of any claims, classifications or promises made by any part of BT that 100% of any town would be covered, in fact quite the reverse.

    18. Karen says:

      If the figures are exchange based and not cabinet based, how is the total percent calculated for the end goal of FTTC, are those figures 90+% of exchanges covered or is it cabinets/premises? If it is cabinets/premises the stats are already a lie for my town.

    19. TheFacts says:

      Premises, total across the UK. Not based on individual exchanges.

    20. Karen says:

      In that case where can i find the figures for amount of premises that have FTTC available in my town?

    21. gerarda says:


      The Ofcom postcode data attached to their annual report shows the postcodes with exchange lines connected to an FTTC cabinet. However, as discussed ad nauseum on here, although BTOfcom pretend that all these exchange lines can receive a superfast service and include them in their coverage figures in reality they cannot.

    22. Karen says:

      Hence why i have asked him to link to something that quote actual premise availability town by town rather than pie in the sky figures he seems to deal in.

    23. TheFacts says:

      Numbers are not published per town by BT or Virgin Media. Why not contact Ofcom.

    24. gerarda says:

      No point in doing that – neither Ofcom nor their puppet masters have any interest in publishing ” the facts”

    25. Karen says:

      “Numbers are not published per town by BT or Virgin Media. Why not contact Ofcom.”

      Virgin happily publish how many customers they have on their Cable and ADSL products and availability figure.

      BT on the other hand do not publish how many can get FTTC, so saying it will is or will be available to 90% or more is nothing but pie in the sky figures with no demonstrable proof.

    26. TheFacts says:

      Where are the VM figures per town available and how do we prove them?

  15. JNeuhoff says:

    TheFacts and Freddy are of the “I’m all right Jack” category. They are unable to see how taxpayer’s money is wasted here, especially for those taxpayers who happened to be on the wrong side of the BDUK-BT postcode lottery. BT clearly is not a charity in need of public donations!

    1. TheFacts says:

      The BDUK funding was never intended to cover 100%. Unless you know otherwise.

    2. Karen says:

      No it was intended to part fund areas that were not economically viable rather than cities and large counties where much of it has been spent.

    3. gerarda says:

      @thefacts The funding was supposed to deliver 2mb to 100%. Whether it will do so or not remains to be seen as these appear to be the areas that are going to be addressed last whilst BT connect urban/semi urban areas where the cost benefit ratio to them is better.

    4. Karen says:

      That 2Mb for all figure was also supposed to be done originally by 2015. Fat chance when that was announced and even fatter chance of it now. More government and BT daydreaming.

    5. Karen says:

      Actually i stand corrected it is worse they were originally aiming for 2012 for 2Mb to all…

    6. TheFacts says:

      We would all have had fibre many years ago if it wasn’t for a certain government of the time.

    7. Karen says:

      Yes that government of the time did not want to fall in to the trap we have now of half funding BT to do the rollout.

      A time when BT was still PARTLY state owned. Regardless, thats the past, and if BT were so eager back then why are they not so eager to fund it entirely thereselfs today, have they not made enough profit as a private entity in which to do so?

      What actual assurances are BT giving everyone (thats 100%) will get 2Mb (thats actual speed not advertised figure) by 2015, with all the extra funding they are getting for the USC?

    8. Karen says:

      ^^^ 2 days pass and despite his persistent nonsense no answer to this.

      Lets add on the question of if BT can afford £900 million for only euro football rights why did they need government help for broadband in the first place?

    9. Gadget says:

      Put simply, BT believe that the investment in euro football rights will be commercially viable for them, whilst investing in the “final third” would not be.

    10. FibreFred says:

      Exactly Gadget, exactly that

  16. Karen says:

    “Put simply, BT believe that the investment in euro football rights will be commercially viable for them, whilst investing in the “final third” would not be.”

    Oh i see spending £900 million on a TV service not even 10% of its customer base subscribes to is commercially viable while expanding FTTC to the final 10% of the ENTIRE country is not. Does Mr Bean do their maths for them?

Comments are closed.

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
  • Vodafone £21.95 (*24.95)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £22.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £22.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: 12 Months of Norton 360
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Community Fibre £20.00 (*29.50)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Double Speed Boost
  • Virgin Media £25.00 (*51.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £25.00 (*28.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £29.00 (*49.00)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £29.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3291)
  2. BT (2954)
  3. Building Digital UK (1865)
  4. FTTC (1860)
  5. Politics (1850)
  6. Openreach (1770)
  7. Business (1613)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1395)
  9. Statistics (1366)
  10. FTTH (1361)
  11. 4G (1206)
  12. Fibre Optic (1137)
  13. Wireless Internet (1122)
  14. Virgin Media (1111)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1108)
  16. Vodafone (796)
  17. EE (795)
  18. TalkTalk (740)
  19. Sky Broadband (720)
  20. 5G (690)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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