Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

KC Says 71% of Brits Consider Broadband Speed During House Hunting

Friday, February 21st, 2014 (12:24 pm) - Score 1,157
house_prices_and_broadband_speed

A new survey conducted by incumbent Hull ISP KC, with more than 2,000 adults across the United Kingdom, has revealed that 71% of Brits take Internet speed into account when looking for a new home. This is partly being driven by the growth in connected devices and home working.

The study claims that the need for a faster Internet connection has also been influenced by the rise in home working, with 15% of workers now operating from home for at least one day every month (up from 9% in 2005) and 8% for five days or more every month.

On top of that 30% of respondents also plan to buy at least one more internet-connected device in the next 12 months (households currently own an average of 3 devices), with Tablet computers being top of the list on 14% and that’s followed by smartphones (12%), smart TVs (10%) and games consoles (7%).

The correlation between broadband quality and house value, at least in terms of the property’s attractiveness to a prospective buyer, is of course nothing new and naturally KC are keen to link this into their on-going roll-out of Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) dominated broadband technology (with some FTTC).

Mike Reed, KC’s Customer in Woodmansey, said:

We put our house on the market late last year and included information about the download speeds achievable here as we believe it’s an attractive feature for prospective buyers. Now that we’ve become used to superfast speeds I’m not prepared to move to a property that doesn’t have the capacity to have fibre to the home, so when viewing properties for the first time it’s one of the first questions I ask the vendor.

The quickest and most reliable internet can only be found with a Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) connection, which uses fibre cables for the full distance, from the exchange right to the home. With no copper cables at all, it can deliver much faster speeds and meet the requirements of 21st century consumers and businesses.”

Setting aside the spin, it’s also important to remember that house value and broadband quality are highly subjective to personal choice. We all want good broadband connectivity but how much extra value that adds or whether you pick one home over another is entirely up to each individual.

Unfortunately the connectivity technology is not always one that consumers have much choice over, so if you live in an area with poor broadband then that’s life until it gets upgraded by the telecoms operator. KC currently aims to extend the reach of their Lightstream superfast broadband network out to 45,000 premises by March 2015 (here).

Leave a Comment
104 Responses
  1. Avatar Matthew Williams says:

    Very True I’ve been looking for a new place to live and disregarded a few places because they had poor internet connection speeds.

    1. Avatar Andy says:

      Yes I wish I’d done the same, moved from a house with a 120mb connection to a new estate where we cannot get Virgin Media, BT haven’t upgraded the cab (and probably never will) and local FTTM companies cannot reach us because of a few trees. Basically it’s almost ruined the pleasure of moving into our new home.

  2. Avatar Phil says:

    100% agree. I been searching new houses looking up BT Checker for FTTC estimated line speed (don’t want to move house with below 50Meg)

  3. Avatar JNeuhoff says:

    “(don’t want to move house with below 50Meg)”

    More than 2/3 of all VDSL-capable lines are less than 50mbps, so your house choices are quite limited 🙂

    1. Avatar Phil says:

      My house is sync rate 80000kbps down and 20000kbps up. Getting 73 to 74Meg down and 17 to 18Meg up. As my cabinet is closer to my house.

    2. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      My line is in sync at 70/14 at 700m from the cabinet on Ali cable. Pretty sure your choices of houses are quite vast especially when the FTTC roll out matures.

    3. Avatar Neil McRae says:

      can you quote a source for that please?

    4. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      Neil, well considering half of the country has Virgin cable broadband available to them. Then when the FTTC commercial roll out is completed most houses in city centres and surrounding urban areas will be able to achieve speeds above 50mb/s. Like I said until the roll out of BDUK and the commercial FTTC roll out then not many people will be able to.

    5. Avatar gerarda says:

      neil see the table on the think broadband FTTC guide

    6. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      Gerarda well those distance/speed ratios are not accurate. Like I said I’m just under 700m from my ECI cabinet (including tie pair) and I’m currently and have been getting 70/14 give or take two meg for the last two years an this is on aluminium d side, on copper that would be more like 73/16

    7. Avatar FibreFred says:

      You mean this? http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html

      Agreed with the others its inaccurate , I’m 550m from my cab so I should get about 36Mbps according to that chart, but I actually get 55Mbps

    8. Avatar George says:

      Thinkbroadband link looks roughly accurate to me for most figures, not far out at all. Here is a chart of what you are likely to get with each DSL tech…
      http://postimg.org/image/a1npzpnk9/
      Originally sourced via Ofcom who should know better than any individual here or any website.

    9. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      As an engineer I know that’s not a very accurate chart. I’d say in most cases speeds of 50mb/s can be achieved at distances of around 500m (obviously depending on line quality and quality of internal wiring). Of which would give you ample of houses to choose from when looking for a property. Even more when and if they choose to incorporate vectoring. You also have the option of Virgin which I said earlier is in more than half the built up parts of the country now. Plenty of options for plenty of houses.

    10. Avatar FibreFred says:

      @Unknown101

      Being an engineer counts for nothing if it goes against what some people wish to believe. 😐

    11. Avatar gerarda says:

      Bear in mind that FTTC take up is pitifully low – so no pressure on backhaul, limited cross talk etc.

    12. Avatar Raindrops says:

      “As an engineer I know that’s not a very accurate chart”

      So the world is now supposed to believe you are an Engineer, the thinkbroadband info is wrong and so is a chart from Ofcom. I suspect they know more than you. The engineer claim is the funniest thing though.

    13. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Unknown is the engineer not I

    14. Avatar Raindrops says:

      I never said you were or were not an engineer, so i have no idea what you are talking about

    15. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Well that’s refreshing that you don’t think I’m Unknown101

      Personally I’ve no reason to suspect he isn’t what he say he is, an engineer. I have always disputed those charts even before he posted, it even says on the thinkbroadband site “estimate”.

    16. Avatar George says:

      Of course the chart i posted though there is no doubt as that is Ofcom based.

      Here is some more info on how this countries poor choices…
      https://neil-fairbrother.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/1/gfast-a-high-speed-cul-de-sac

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_bVFD6MzC4

      The youtube video is particularly entertaining especially from the 7min 50 second mark where even an EX-BT Mr Cochrane says we invested in the wrong technology.

      Mr Vaizey states “Im not going to try and have an argument…”. No Mr Vaizey you will not because just like the chart i provided people in the industry such as Ofcom and Mr Cochrane know a hell of a lot more than armchair BT fans.

    17. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Oh my what is Bill Murphy talking about in that Video at the 6 Minute and 55 second point.

      “Upload speeds 20x faster than the old generation technology”

      Im sure people that had 1.5Mb upload speeds (1.5 x 20 = 30Mb since when did FTTC offer this?) on ADSL from LLUs (and beyond with bonded) and those that have Virgin which has been around many years would disagree.

      BT they never fail to impress with screwing figures.

    18. Avatar George says:

      The information in the article is good also, and clears up quite a lot of FUD.

    19. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      “there is no doubt as that is Ofcom based.”

      Is there no doubt? Just because it says it came from Ofcom?

      Can you link to the Ofcom source that published it?

    20. Avatar George says:

      The direct Ofcom report no, i looked through a few of the thousands of PDF files ofcom have but have yet to find it.

      That chart is real and your instigation i made things up in your other post because the chart says ‘meters’ rather than ‘metres’ i take exception to.

      The chart is used all over the internet…
      http://linebroker.co.uk/fttc-tech.php
      http://infinityfibrebroadband.com/
      as 2 examples which are both UK based.

      The chart is also mentioned in BT’s own forums multiple times…
      https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/How-far-away-from-a-cabinet-is-deemed-too-far-for-Infinity/td-p/866530

      As one example. If it were inaccurate BT would remove it.
      You will also note the last post in that thread from a user confirming his speed and distance from the cabinet which equates roughly to what that chart states he should get (IE within a few Mb).

      As i have stated people can believe what they wish, i have linked to other sources of the chart. In addition to a confirmation it is pretty accurate.

    21. Avatar George says:

      Further ofcom data however does also show over half do not get anywhere near full 80Mb…
      http://digital-scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ofcom-broadband-infrastructure-report.html
      So if you want to insist the original ofcom chart is wrong the majority with FTTC must be a long distance from cabinets. Even more so if you think FTTC behaves better at distance than the original chart i provided and TBB states.

    22. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      Just because a graph is “used all over the internet” does not make it true. Just because it is found on a BT community forum does not mean that anyone at BT created it, believes it or endorses it. Just that a BT customer googled it, found it, and posted it – just like you. BT wouldn’t remove it, because the community forum is just that – BT customers posting information and self-help. It isn’t (and never has been) an official outlet of BT policy.

      The graph may have been a truthful expression of belief when it was first published (and it probably was), but it may no longer apply (and probably doesn’t). Without knowing the context of publication, we cannot know how much faith to place in it, or whether to discard it.

      Just because I question whether the graph is truly sourced from Ofcom, does not mean I accuse you you of lying, or blame you for feeding false information. I *know* you’ve just picked it up from the internet, because I can google and find it elsewhere just as easily as you can. But I bet you don’t know the original source, and I certainly don’t know that either (and can’t find it).

      That means neither of us knows if it was created while VDSL2 was still being written (so showed initial hopes, rather than current facts), and neither of us knows if it was photoshopped to appear credible. Nor do we know what profile of VDSL2 it applies to.

      The only remaining tool I have to decide whether to treat it as credible is to match it against personal experience and observation. And from that personal experience, I find it totally non-credible.

      To me, it looks like it was created back when VDSL2 was being first touted as “better” than plain VDSL. But it equally looks like it was not kept up-to-date with all the various profiles and higher frequencies of VDSL2.

      It looks like it is old, suspect, and should be discarded as no longer useful.

    23. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      As for that user on the BT forum “confirming” his speed matches your graph…

      I think you’ll find that he only *says* he confirms the speed. But if you look at his distance of 2.2km and actual speed of 15Mbps, he’s considerably better than your graph (which says he should get 10Mbps).

      In fact, once again, he gets exactly what @Phil’s graph says.

    24. Avatar Raindrops says:

      That depends on how you read the thick line, read the top of it and its actually more like 12-13Mb that chart shows, with the user claiming 15Mb and difference of 2Mb which is perfectly normal range of variation.

    25. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Defending the Phil graph just makes you look silly as you have claimed you get the max speed (83Mb attainable 80Mb actual) at 400M distance and as i have shown that according to the Phil chart is not possible.
      http://postimg.org/image/4ebsr0b9r/

    26. Avatar MikeW says:

      @Raindrops
      I’m not sure what thick line you are looking at. The red one?

      The BT user says he gets 15Mbps at 2250m.
      On @George’s graph, the VDSL2 line (light blue) has the complete thickness of the line below 10Mbps for a distance of 2250m.

      I do find it “interesting” that, in that post you claim that 2-3Mbps out of 15 constitutes a normal level of variation. But in the next post you take me to task for claiming that I have an 80Mbps sync (with 75Mbps download), and how that is apparently totally incompatible with @Phil’s graph that shows I should expect approx 72 download speed.

      It is rather funny that, while you choose to defend @George’s graph for a BT user having 15Mbps, and you choose to argue whether 2-3Mbps might be considered natural variation, you haven’t chosen to look at what George’s graph says about my speeds. If his graph were true, shouldn’t I be getting around 27Mbps? Isn’t the fact that it is wrong by more than 50Mbps, some 200%, a little more concerning to you?

    27. Avatar George says:

      A) Nope the pale blue line shows about 12Mb.
      B) According to the graph you defend you get 70Mb or lower
      C) you claimed ACTUAL SPEED of 80Mb now you have changed your mind and claim ACTUAL SPEED of 75Mb
      D) Quite clear you are making things up as you go along, which is what someone else has been known to do.
      E) Were you also not the person that claimed the last poll on here could be manipulated? Funny enough we have not had another poll recently, i wonder was that due to spam complaining to Mark here. Coincidently that is also something another person is famous for.

    28. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Yep no way he even gets 75Mb if the chart he wishes to defend is right he claims 350-400M distance, even best case distance scenario he gets this….

      http://postimg.org/image/xkud0o9en/

      Er that is not 75Mb.

    29. Avatar George says:

      I give him points for trying… He is very trying 😉

    30. Avatar George says:

      Scratch that there must be a hidden blob on the chart like the hidden Sky fibre products he claims 😉

  4. Avatar Neil McRae says:

    like with everything I suspect 71% of people want a house with a door, a bathroom, heating, you make compromises and bb speed will be one some people make and some people don’t.

    Going through the house buy and sell process, I mentioned broadband speed to the potential buyers of my current house, all of them didn’t really care which did surprise me.

    Neil.

  5. Avatar Chris says:

    [admin note: post removed for trolling]

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Man you are special

      So just for the record who else am I?

      I’m apparently New Londoner, Neil, I’m sure there’s someone else as well fastman is it? Have I missed anyone else? There are plenty of people that disagree with what you say so they must also be me, sorry if I’ve missed anyone else that’s me out 🙂

    2. Avatar Raindrops says:

      One thing is for certain when people correct you you go complaining to Staff here. More than likely being as predictable as you are here spamming their PM or Email pretending its complaints from more than one individual.

  6. Avatar Phil says:

    Property to street cabinet chart: http://postimg.org/image/daxyo9qq1/

    1. Avatar George says:

      A more detailed one for you Phil
      http://postimg.org/image/a1npzpnk9/

    2. Avatar JNeuhoff says:

      @George: Interesting chart. VDSL2 will only be good for short lines (less than 350 metres). And even the old ADSL2+ beats VDLSL2 for lines longer than 400 metres or so, according to this chart!

      It is a fact anyway that VDSL is not commercially vioable technology for more than a 3rd of the UK, hence all the wasted taxpayer’s donations to BT.

    3. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “It is a fact anyway that VDSL is not commercially vioable technology for more than a 3rd of the UK

      What technology is?

    4. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      Jneuhoff yeah it is but I think your forgetting FTTC line loss technically starts from the DSLAM, at the cabinet ADSL2+ is from the exchange where most of the line loss is and usually the longest part of the line. Those graphs are way off what is being achieved. An yes backhaul and cross talk isn’t where it would be if every cabinet is at 100% capacity but I know my cabinet is currently at 60-70% capacity (live a fair distance from the exchange so demand is higher) and it hasn’t really affected me and I’m about 700m from the cabinet still getting above average speeds and constant.

    5. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Great information George and yes JNeuhoff its not viable to around a third of the UK. I guess that is why BT went sniffing around for so much money.

    6. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Isn’t that the reason for BDUK? because no tech is commercially viable for the final third so extra funding was needed.

    7. Avatar George says:

      Agreed fred that is what the BDUK was “supposed” to be for though as i have pointed out in a response above the reality is different.

      Unless of course you wish to argue with Ofcom data and Mr Cochrane who worked for BT. I suspect he and that Organisation know more than any of us or government bureaucrats that hand out money.

    8. Avatar FibreFred says:

      So Peter thinks bt should be rolling out FTTP to rural areas to deliver syncronous speeds no problem with that view we just come back to the same old roadblock how is that paid for?

    9. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Considering in the same video small communities have rolled out their own product which has meant they have gone from 0.5Mb to 32Mb. Im pretty sure a massive organisation like BT could manage to offer them something better if they really wanted. Or are you saying BT are so hopeless it only takes small little communities and small business to offer more than what BT does?

      Id also suggest as George points out considering Mr cochrane is a former chief technologist for BT he knows just a bit more than you or any BT armchair supporter about the technology including its costs even though obviously you would like to think you know more than anyone.

    10. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Was there an answer in there ? I didn’t spot one

    11. Avatar FibreFred says:

      And as for “knows better” it may be news to you but you don’t need to be a CTO or futurologist to know FTTP us better that vdsl gfast etc its common sense it’s about what is affordable and always has been something those with axes to grind fail to grasp each and every time

    12. Avatar Raindrops says:

      I have no axe to grind its fact those in the industry know more than you.

    13. Avatar George says:

      The only reason i posted the Ofcom chart was for clarification. It is far more in line with the TBB data than other info provided.

      People can make up their own minds on what is accurate. Data from Ofcom and a well known broadband site or random people commenting on the internet. I know what i think is likely more accurate.

      Of course if anyone has actual data which they can prove is more accurate than the UK telecoms regulator has then im sure we would all be interested.

    14. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “People can make up their own minds on what is accurate. Data from Ofcom and a well known broadband site or random people commenting on the internet. I know what i think is likely more accurate.”

      I can’t disagree with that at all. If I didn’t have a faster speed than that graph tells me I can have I would believe that chart.

      Its an estimated chart as you know there are so many variables (internal wiring, copper quality etc etc)

      and because of those variables this:-

      “More than 2/3 of all VDSL-capable lines are less than 50mbps, so your house choices are quite limited :)”

      Is just based on an estimated chart, not real life

    15. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Actually before I ordered fttc the estimate I got was in line with that Ofcom chart it was 36Mbps , maybe Bt use that chart themselves for their estimates ?

    16. Avatar JNeuhoff says:

      “we just come back to the same old roadblock how is that paid for?”

      What a hypocritical statement that is, because that same poster never had objections to wasting more than £Billion taxpayer’s money, with a lot going to a single monopoly private company who has no need for it. If BT wants to run a BT Sports channel or waste money in Sainsbury vouchers, that’s fine, but it should then first build a proper telecom network if it wants more customers, and not act like a poor charity or beggar!

      There is an awful Cannot-Do culture here!

    17. Avatar FibreFred says:

      That isn’t an answer to the question I asked , how predictable

    18. Avatar Gadget says:

      So JNeuhoff – let’s assume that the Government has put the money on the table and said “we want to fund a full fibre to the home network and here is out contribution, any extra funding has to come from the company who takes our cash” Where do you think the extra, let’s be generous £25b is coming from?
      There is a sticking point which is we as a country are stuck with whatever network can be purchased/built for the money on the table. Now we could wait, save our pennies and in the future fund your dream, but in the meantime there will be no other investment or additional rollout.
      I get that you do not believe that the money should go to a company which is putting up its own funds as well because you do not agree that the provision of an improved broadband service for a large proportion of the country, while not the nirvana of FTTH, but available now is not what you want. But in the real world what would you do with the money available now?

    19. Avatar FibreFred says:

      I’ve put the same thing to him countless times Gadget but rather than explore that and have a sensible debate he just rants on about copper trolling and vouchers etc etc.

    20. Avatar Gadget says:

      Well what about a voucher scheme – unfortunately it needs a network to provide it, so currently for residential that is satellite and for businesses in connected cities it could also be fibre, but not in the rural areas only cities.
      What about DIY, well the best evidence for that is probably Digital Region which managed to spend £100m for 3,000 customers and then couldn’t even continue trading, even after starting before BT even announced any NGA deployment there.
      What about the other shining example of a government funded rollout aka NBN in Australia – the latest report published and just a little cynically reported here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/20/turnbulls_nbn_plan_backpedals_on_blackspot_fix_plan/ seems to suggest that the Australian Government is also acknowledging that some black-spots will cost an awful lot to fix and may might get side-lined for the sake of increasing coverage with the money available.

  7. Avatar Unknown101 says:

    All I can say is those graphs are not accurate, some people achieve less but more achieve a better speed than predicted. Regardless of all the BT haters on this site, the investment from the British government and private investment, it’s helping the BT share price grow and as a shareholder myself couldn’t be any happier so keep hating. FTTP isn’t going to happen nationally FTTC is what is happening as no one else is willing to invest nationally, what the government has invested and BT wouldn’t even give 1/3 of the nation FTTP so to keep as many people happy as possible FTTC it is, live with it.

    1. Avatar Raindrops says:

      “All I can say is those graphs are not accurate, some people achieve less but more achieve a better speed than predicted.”

      Unless you have a more accurate chart for the UK than the Ofcom one which has been produced and the data from a well known broadband site what you believe is meaningless. Again the industry knows more than you do engineer or not.

    2. Avatar George says:

      Ditto as said above.

  8. Avatar MikeW says:

    I return from holiday, and find the children squabbling again. Nothing ever changes!

    The best bit of advice I can give is this: Don’t trust any graph of speed vs distance, unless you know and understand the provenance of the data it appears to show.

    VDSL2 has many flavours (4 profiles at 8MHz, and further ones at 17MHz and 30MHz), and copper has many flavours (most graphs use copper at 0.4mm, 26AWG, while some use 0.5mm copper, 24AWG), and these flavours contribute hugely to the effects seen.

    In the UK, we originally used the 8c profile, which only went up to 7MHz, and is probably the profile that results in the slowest speeds. As of autumn 2011, we have swapped to a 17MHz profile. Graphs for one profile are not comparable to the other.

    In the UK, we apply DPBO, restricting power for VDSL2 where it overlaps the local ADSL2+ frequencies. This reduces the speed of actual FTTC in comparison with theoretical graphs.

    In the UK, we tend to see 0.5mm copper in the D-side, rather than the 26AWG used to create a lot of graphs. Graphs for the former will show distances around 30% longer than the former. We also use up to 0.9mm copper for longer lines, which will result in higher speeds at distance.

    None of the graphs specify any allowance for crosstalk, or for the amount of take-up that causes the crosstalk. As we know that speeds are affected hugely by this factor, it means unlabelled graphs are hard to judge.

    So, the obvious question is this: what is the provenance of the graphs being thrown around here?

    The one labelled “Ofcom”, posted by @George, has a couple of issues that make it questionable:
    1) the fact that it labels distance as “meters” rather than “”metres” suggests that it doesn’t really depict UK data. Even if it crossed Ofcom’s desk, it is probably a re-publication of someone else’s data.
    2) The fact it includes speeds for VDSL suggests it is very early data; the VDSL standard has never made it into mainstream deployment anywhere, so tends to only be included in graphs that tried to show the relative strengths of the different standards.
    3) The fact that the data in this graph is directly refuted by another graph from Ofcom, this time of known provenance.

    http://postimg.org/image/w3jfr576h/

    In this example, from page 23 of the 2011 Fixed-line broadband performance report, Ofcom publish a different graph. It shows a top speed of 55Mbps, a range for 40Mbps of about 800-900 metres, and a range for 20Mbps of 2km – which are roughly triple the distances shown on @George’s.

    As it is from mid 2011, that graph likely depicts the 8c profile, using 7.05MHz. It certainly shows my experience of the time reasonably, where my 650 metre line could achieve 37Mbps after DLM intervention.

    Unfortunately, Ofcom don’t seem to have published a more recent graph than this to depict the effect of profile 17a.

    The graph published by @Phil seems to be sourced from the “increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk” website, in an article dated April 2013. It very much depicts data for the UK using profile 17a and our DPBO scheme, and is likely to be more up-to-date than either @George’s or the one I just posted.

    That graph matches my own experiences (that 650 metre line would handle around 50Mbps, while my current 350-400 metre line handles 80Mbps), and seems to match speed reports in online forums for people with copper lines in a reasonable state. It doesn’t really reflect the problems people can encounter with bad lines, or with aluminium.

    The distance/speed data on the ThinkBroadband site seems to reflect a degree of conservatism – the same conservatism that was in BT’s DSL checker 12-18 months ago – and I find the data reflects the speeds that happen for problem lines. I believe the speeds were originally sourced from subscriber data from Origin on the South Yorkshire Digital Region network, rather than the Openreach network (hence the figures higher than 80Mbps). Obviously it provides figures that are too low for the lines I have experience of.

    The other figures in the Thinkbroadband data – the “cumulative %age of premises at this distance” – is sourced from the Sagentia report, for Ofcom, on the UK copper access network.

    1. Avatar gerarda says:

      The graph quoted by Phil is clearly wrong in relation to its reach. Openreach work on the basis that any premises more than 1.5miles (2.4km) from a cabinet are out of reach of the FTTC service yet it is showing speeds of 12mb at that distance and almost 10mbs at 3km.

    2. Avatar Unknown101 says:

      Spot on Mike, couldn’t have said it any better. Let’s just see where FTTC goes with the 30a profile and vectoring (if it turns out to be viable) pushing the boundaries of what that copper cable was put in for but in my opinion getting good value for money for the investment by the government and then people who want FTTP can get it via the FTTPoD product using the FTTC spine because like many have said not everyone cares whether their broadband comes via FTTC/P they just want broadband at a better speed than what ADSL provided.

    3. Avatar George says:

      Further more, the percent figures on TBB about line distance percents Vs speed…
      http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html

      also likewise seem pretty accurate from further ofcom related data such as this chart and the NGA speeds it shows.
      http://digital-scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ofcom-broadband-infrastructure-report.html

      That clearly demonstrates MOST do not get the full 80Mb so either most are a considerable distance from the cabinets or the other ofcom chart i posted and how VDSL speeds decay quickly within a few hundred metres is accurate.

      It is quite clear once you start to get passed 200M as thinkbroadband suggests and the chart i originally provided suggests speed you will from your UPTO 80Mb product drops dramatically (by around 50% to 40 odd Mb or there abouts).

      Multiple data sets do not lie.

    4. Avatar George says:

      “The graph quoted by Phil is clearly wrong in relation to its reach.”

      Indeed it only becomes even close to accurate at the 1km+ mark. At least according to multiple ofcom data and UK sources that sell broadband rather than talk about it and use the chart i mentioned.

      I do still like the way he wants to insist Ofcom, TBB, and no doubt to come people that sell the product all have it wrong though.

    5. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      I assume you refer to the 1st chart of the digital-scotland page, not the second one (only the first is “ofcom-related”).

      Unfortunately, that graph shows the speeds for the entire nation, including ADSL, ADSL2+, FTTC and Docsis cable modems. It doesn’t show anything about the speed of VDSL2 vs distance.

      I appreciate that you’re trying to say that the fraction of connections at 80Mbps is tiny, but even then… the graph doesn’t help you. In fact it proves you are wrong.

      At the time that report was compiled, there were 21.7 million broadband connections, of which 1.5 million were FTTC via Openreach: about 7% of all connections.

      Using the TBB percentages, around 20% of FTTC connections are within your 200 metre threshold – which amounts to 0.3 million connections, or 1.4% of the total number of connections.

      Can we make out what 1.4% should be on that graph? About the thickness of the lines?

      To me, it looks like the 80Mbps section is around 3% of all connections, which would correspond to 0.65 million customers. That would be 43% of FTTC connections. If we go by the percentages on TBB, 43% matches roughly to a distance of just under 400 metres.

      And amazingly enough, that matches up with my own line – Actual speed of 80Mbps, max attainable of 83Mbps, at 350-400 metres.

      Of course, that calculation has problems, in both directions…

      The proportion of subscribers getting 80Mbps must include some VM subscribers on cable, getting 100Mbps speeds; this would reduce the FTTC numbers. On the other hand, some people who could achieve 80Mbps have chosen to take packages that are restricted to 40Mbps but cheaper; this would increase the FTTC numbers.

      On balance, I’d say that graph doesn’t help your case.

      It is quite clear that 80Mbps speeds survive beyond 200 metres easily.

    6. Avatar George says:

      It proves more than enough that FTTC top speeds over distance does not happen if it did the NGA figures would not all be stuck around the 45Mb level or 50% roughly of the UPTO 80Mb FTTC is supposed to go. IF 80Mb is possible well beyond 200M why is the percent of those with 40-60Mb great than those with 80Mb? That chart clearly shows more people (LONGER LINE) are stuck around the 50(ish)Mb mark than they are at 80Mb.

      Only a small percent (just as TBB shows) are going to be a distance of 200M or less to a cabinet and the ofcom charts agree with that entirely.

    7. Avatar George says:

      You have also demonstrated the graph phil provided IE this…
      http://postimg.org/image/daxyo9qq1/
      with your statement of….

      “And amazingly enough, that matches up with my own line – Actual speed of 80Mbps, max attainable of 83Mbps, at 350-400 metres.”

      Is 100% wrong because that chart even at a distance of 0 Metres from the cabinet shows nobody gets 80Mb. The max that graph shows is 76-78Mb (depending on how you interpret the round blob they used).

      So quite clearly from that chart you wish to insist is correct is 100% wrong if you are getting ACTUAL SPEED OF 80Mb.

    8. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Oh i wonder how he is going to explain Phils chart is right with his ACTUAL 80Mb speed when it clearly shows NOBODY gets 80Mb.

    9. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      Sorry, George, but that graph doesn’t tell you what you think it does.

      The reason the “NGA” part of the graph has large steps is because of the number of VM subscribers in it, at 20, 30 and 60 thresholds.

      The FTTC portion of the graph shows the steps at 40 and 80, plus the intervening slopes. But the sample size is too small for you to discern the drop-off over distance. Our difference in opinion amounts to the same as the width of the line in the graph.

    10. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George @Raindrops
      That’s easy to understand if you have two braincells to rub together. Perhaps you two could combine yours for the next response?

      Some graphs show sync speeds, while some graphs show download speeds. FTTC Sync speeds of 80Mbps usually translate to download speeds of around 76-77Mbps.

    11. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Also unless i am reading the TBB data wrong http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html
      At a distance of 350-400M a user would get about 43Mb.

      If we then look at actual real life collected data for a FTTC product, coincidentally the TBB speed guide what 50% of people should get and the average real life what people do get almost lines up.
      http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2013/05/a-look-at-sky-broadband-service-speeds/

      If he is getting 80Mb at lets say 370 Metres there must be a HUGE number of people that are more than double that distance to be stuck at around 50Mb.

      SHOCK OF SHOCK speeds people actually get, what TBB thinks 50% of people will get lines up with what the original ofcom chart you provided for the median speed.

    12. Avatar Raindrops says:

      “FTTC Sync speeds of 80Mbps usually translate to download speeds of around 76-77Mbps.”

      All well and good but you clearly stated…..
      ““And amazingly enough, that matches up with my own line – Actual speed of 80Mbps, max attainable of 83Mbps, at 350-400 metres.”

      So nope that does not explain your speed either. DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE 80Mb speed or not?

      Also why are you now resorting to insults about braincells?

    13. Avatar Raindrops says:

      PS at 350M-400M which is the distance you claim you are at, the chart by Phil shows you do not get the max speed either. It drops by about 5Mb on that chart so you would not have the attainable rate you claim either.

    14. Avatar George says:

      Oh dear some one has been caught in a porkie pie, unless now all the charts are wrong and we should just believe them 😉

    15. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Indeed he has nothing credible now. Defends this chart claims he is 400M distance, claims he gets max speed……
      http://postimg.org/image/4ebsr0b9r/

      FAIL!

    16. Avatar MikeW says:

      @gerarda
      I agree that Ofcom’s tendency to ignore what is missing can cloud things – especially at the sub-1Mbps region.

      But the data in this case is specifically targeted at FTTC subscribers alone, and we know that Openreach will remove the installation if it isn’t up to a small minimum speed. That fact ought to leave us looking at real numbers, with nothing left out.

      So it should give us a good representation of the speeds of people who subscribe to FTTC.

      But it doesn’t help us know how far away any of them are.

    17. Avatar MikeW says:

      @Raindrops
      I can see this is taxing that braincell.

      Speed: The 80 I get is sync speed. Of course. The modem reports an attainable speed of between 82 and 83, so I know I am very much on the threshold.

      My download speed tends to be around 75Mbps; on that basis I’m very much on the line of @Phil’s graph.

      Does that make all the graphs wrong? Not really. Every graph you see on vectoring and crosstalk shows that subscribers get a range of speeds; any graph showing a single line for speed vs distance must be some form of average or estimate… in reality, some subscribers get more, some less.

      And as I said before, it also depends on the copper. Perhaps my line goes back on 0.5mm copper, but perhaps it is 0.7mm. Who knows?

      The trick is to find a chart that you believe based on the evidence you observe. No more than that, no less.

      TBB’s Estimates: They’re estimates, and (as I said before) I believe they are too conservative. They do indeed estimate that I should get 43Mbps, while BTW estimates 60-80. And I actually get 80. What can I say – they’re low.

      TBB’s blog for Sky products: They’re download speeds, rather than sync speeds, so you have to make a small allowance in the speeds to make things comparable.

      And, just like the graph that @George pointed to on Digital Scotland, you can’t rely on the “download speed” to be a proxy for “maximum sync speed capability”. Many subscribers deliberately restrict themselves to a cheaper 40Mb package, even when they could get a higher sync speed. This is even more the case for Sky, because they haven’t openly marketed their 80/20 product – you have to search quite hard for it.

    18. Avatar George says:

      Changing your story now you claimed you get 80Mb ACTUAL SPEED. Funny you change what you say as you go along to try to suit your argument, i wonder who else is famous for that.

    19. Avatar Raindrops says:

      “@Raindrops
      I can see this is taxing that braincell.”

      I see it more as you annoyed like someone else we know when shown to be wrong and resorting to names and insult.

      “Speed: The 80 I get is sync speed. Of course. The modem reports an attainable speed of between 82 and 83, so I know I am very much on the threshold.”

      Oh so now its sync speed rather than ACTUAL SPEED you previously claimed, good good we will get to that new claim.

      “My download speed tends to be around 75Mbps; on that basis I’m very much on the line of @Phil’s graph.”

      Oh really, we shall address that issue in a moment

      “The trick is to find a chart that you believe based on the evidence you observe. No more than that, no less.”

      Indeed you just want to ignore TBB data and Ofcom data, and substitute it with your own theories and data, you still have not provided anything more credible than TBB and a ofcom chart.

      “TBB’s Estimates: They’re estimates, and (as I said before) I believe they are too conservative. They do indeed estimate that I should get 43Mbps, while BTW estimates 60-80. And I actually get 80. What can I say – they’re low.”

      Nonsense. I can whack a handful of phone numbers into the BT checker right now from various areas in the country all closer than your claimed 350-400M distance to the cabinet, myself included and they only guesstimate around 60-65Mb. I myself am only around 250M or so from the cabinet. I do not get 75 or 80Mb and the BT checker only guesstimates 63Mb for myself. So unless your line is special for some reason that is poppy cock. To even suggest TBB estimate a figure and you get almost double their estimate is hilarious start to finish.

      “TBB’s blog for Sky products: They’re download speeds, rather than sync speeds, so you have to make a small allowance in the speeds to make things comparable.”

      Indeed still makes your new claimed 75Mb at 350M distance look rather special though doesn’t it.

      “And, just like the graph that @George pointed to on Digital Scotland, you can’t rely on the “download speed” to be a proxy for “maximum sync speed capability”. Many subscribers deliberately restrict themselves to a cheaper 40Mb package, even when they could get a higher sync speed. This is even more the case for Sky, because they haven’t openly marketed their 80/20 product – you have to search quite hard for it.”

      Does not enter the equation look at the data again http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2013/05/a-look-at-sky-broadband-service-speeds/ there is separate data for the 40Mb and the 80Mb product.

      Also complete and utter poppy cock about having to search hard for skys 76Mb product….
      http://www.sky.com/shop/broadband-talk/fibre-optic/
      If looking at their main sky fibre page is hard there is something wrong with you.
      Perhaps you should just stop speaking.

      Oh and finally to wrap things up…

      http://postimg.org/image/xkud0o9en/

      That is still not 75Mb and that is best case scenario in your 350-400M estimate of your line.

      SO in short
      LIE about Finding skys product
      Changed your mind about your ACTUAL SPEED
      Chart you defend as being correct still says NOPE to your NEW CHANGED claim.

    20. Avatar George says:

      “This is even more the case for Sky, because they haven’t openly marketed their 80/20 product – you have to search quite hard for it.”

      Oh no it is a new claim about hard to find sky products…
      http://www.sky.com/shop/broadband-talk/fibre-optic/

      They hide the speeds of each product and what it is suited/can be done so much also…
      http://www.sky.com/shop/broadband-talk/broadband-speeds/

      No wonder why i never saw any of that before its such hidden marketing

      It is not like Sky have even pulled stunts like this
      http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/07/08/bskyb-unveils-supertaxis-rapport-promote-sky-fibre-broadband
      to advertise their Fibre product, its all hidden marketing.

      Ofcom charts are wrong, TBB data is wrong, Sky hide their fibre product from the public and it is poorly marketed.

      I think i have entered some form of MikeW twilight zone.

  9. Avatar George says:

    The 2011 report is vastly out of data and so is that chart as highlight by some of the data in reports such as
    http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/downloads/

    1. Avatar MikeW says:

      Apologies, George, but I’m only responding to your (very reasonable) request from earlier: “Of course if anyone has actual data which they can prove is more accurate than the UK telecoms regulator has then im sure we would all be interested.”

      I’m afraid that I can’t prove that the UK telecoms regulator is any more accurate in the 2011 graph than they were in your graph, but I can at least tie up the provenance of that data. In what context did Ofcom published your graph? When was it published?

      Of course there is more recent data than the 2011 for a whole raft of categories, but I can’t find anything that gives speed vs distance for VDSL2 in the UK. If you have a link to that specifically, then please let us know. There doesn’t appear to be anything in the link you just provided.

      From my searches through the reports since 2011, I can only conclude that the 2011 report was the last one that Ofcom chose to show that particular graph, including VDSL2.

      They used to do good scatter graphs for ADSL speeds vs exchange distance, but I suspect that they are missing good data for the cabinet line lengths to repeat those for FTTC.

    2. Avatar George says:

      I have presented proven 2013 data now from ofcom, showing most do not get anywhere near full 80Mb speeds, so if you disbelieve the original ofcom chart feel free to explain why most are stuck with speeds much lower than the maximum.
      http://digital-scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ofcom-broadband-infrastructure-report.html

      Of course i suppose that is also questionable data.

  10. Avatar MikeW says:

    In fact, @George, the very best graph I can give you is one that shows the opposite effect:

    86% of all FTTC connections are getting more than 30Mbps, and 90% more than 24Mbps.

    http://postimg.org/image/hdnxxubxx/

    Source: Ofcom 2013 Infrastructure report, paragraph 3.20 and shown in figure 10 on page 24.

    The TBB percentages say that 85% of premises lie within 900 metres.

    Which of the graphs say that 30Mbps can be achieved at 900 metres? That would be @Phil’s graph, and the 2011 graph from Ofcom, but not *your* graph.

    1. Avatar George says:

      That chart shows nothing beyond 30Mb, you have no idea how much speed tails of or increases after 30Mb.

    2. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Yep 86% or whatever figure he wishes to use according to that chart could all have 31Mb AND NO FASTER.

    3. Avatar MikeW says:

      @George
      It is indeed unfortunate that Ofcom chose to stop the graph at 30Mbps.

      But what does it show?

      Well, it is another nail in the coffin for the graph that you keep trying to promote. The one that shows that 30Mbps is only available within 300 metres.

      Again, looking at the TBB percentages, we see that 30% of properties lie within 300 metres, so 70% of properties lie further away than 300 metres. If we believe @George’s graph, then 70% of all FTTC connections should be at less than 30Mbps.

      And yet it is only 14%.

    4. Avatar gerarda says:

      @mikeW Unfortunately Ofcom’s methodology (ignore anything for which there is no data) skews their figures so much that anything they produce in terms of graphs and stats is hugely suspect. However there are loads of graphs that give the theoretical tail off. Why would BTs implementation be any different?

      On a side issue doesn’t reach fall with frequency increase, which is why FTTc has less reach from the cabinet than ADSL does form the exchange? If so then 30Mhz will restrict the coverage even more

    5. Avatar George says:

      He gets 83Mb attainable and ACTUAL 80Mb though at 400M distance, even though the Phil chart which some rushed to say is more correct also says otherwise and at that distance you do not get full speed. It drops by a few Mb even on that chart.

      He miraculously has speeds better than even the best chart which was originally defended as being correct. No doubt that is now also wrong and another will pop up to suit their theory.

    6. Avatar George says:

      “Well, it is another nail in the coffin for the graph that you keep trying to promote. The one that shows that 30Mbps is only available within 300 metres.”

      No it is not, your chart http://postimg.org/image/hdnxxubxx/ mentions nothing about distance. It does not show how speed decays after the 86% The remainder could all have 31Mb or only 1Mb. So no what you presented disproves not a single thing.

    7. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Indeed if he wants nails in coffins on charts the phil chart he defends and states…
      “that matches up with my own line – Actual speed of 80Mbps, max attainable of 83Mbps, at 350-400 metres.”

      Which would be the MAXIMUM current FTTC goes at.

      Cant be right…
      http://postimg.org/image/4ebsr0b9r/

    8. Avatar MikeW says:

      @gerarda
      Sorry – I replied to you, but it went further up the thread somewhere.

    9. Avatar MikeW says:

      @gerarda
      On the higher frequencies:
      I’m not sure why you mention 30MHz. Did you misread something I wrote about 30Mbps?

      Anyway – Yes, the higher frequencies do attenuate faster over distance. So the 30a profile is only useful over very short distances (200 metres at most?); over any longer distance it will just fall back to working like the 17a profile. If you get longer, things will fall back to working like the 8c profile (nearly).

      If all things were equal, VDSL2 would fall back to working like ADSL2+ at a far enough distance, and then fall back to working like ADSL even further than that.

      But things aren’t equal. The cabinet employs DPBO, which reduces the power of VDSL2’s lower frequencies so they don’t swamp the ADSL frequencies coming from the exchange. That reduction in power is what prevents VDSL2 from being useful beyond 2 miles, 3 km or so.

    10. Avatar MikeW says:

      @Gerarda
      Finally, on the “tail off”:

      I agree with you, that there certainly is a tail off.

      For people like yourself, stuck out at the further reaches of FTTC coverage and beyond, the nature of that tail-off is a vitally critical factor – and considerably more important than arguing with some numpties about whether I can get 80Mbps rather than 75.

      I can safely say, therefore, that I am more interested in figuring out the tail-off and who can get 30 or 25Mbps, than I am in those who can get 75 or 80.

      If you follow @George’s graph, SFBB (>30Mbps) gets as far as 300 metres. If you follow @Phil’s, it gets to 900 metres. That difference encompasses about 55% of the country, which makes it important to know which to trust – if either.

      My current rule-of-thumb is that SF speeds happen on cable distances of 1000m (for 30Mb) or 1250 (for 24Mb), while I know you prefer to use an as-the-crow-flies figure of 1km.

      This distance threshold ends up being pretty critical to the success or failure of the current BDUK strategies.

      I’m also trying to figure the equivalent rules-of-thumb for when vectoring gets added.

  11. Avatar gerarda says:

    @mikew There are certainly instances round here of >24mb service up to 1 mile – though whether everyone at that distance can get it is not certain. There are probably lots of other factors that determine a particular line speed with VDSL just as there are with ADSL

  12. Avatar GNewton says:

    Here is the latest stats for Freddy, just for this forum thread:

    February 21, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 10:53 am
    February 22, 2014 at 5:53 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    February 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 4:36 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    February 22, 2014 at 7:42 pm
    February 23, 2014 at 9:15 am
    February 23, 2014 at 9:31 am
    February 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm
    February 23, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    And not one single useful contribution made to this forum discussion. Though JNeuhoff often presents extreme views, he’s right in one thing: Freddy has no concern when it comes to wasting public money on his precious BT, and has to this date not offered any suggestion how to deploy nextgen broadband WITHOUT wasting hard earned taxpayer’s money in the long run!

    I keep telling people: Move, if you need decent nextgen broadband, sites like RightMove are finally waking up to the fact that it is much harder to sell a property when there is no nextgen broadband, RightMove has now included the PointTopic data on its website. Or encourage other telecom/altnet providers to extend their coverages, there are plenty of alternatives to VDSL, the latter simply doesn’t make commercial sense for more than one third of the country.

    1. Avatar George says:

      We also have another that likes to change its argument that has gone from claiming 80Mb ACTUAL SPEED to now claiming it is 75Mb. Which still does not tally with the graph even best case at 350M.

    2. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Changing its mind to try and prove its point and win when it lost from the start sounds very familiar. I wonder why.

    3. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “and has to this date not offered any suggestion how to deploy nextgen broadband WITHOUT wasting hard earned taxpayer’s money in the long run!”

      That’s not mine to suggest as I do not believe it has been wasted, apart from on the BDUK process itself (not what has been delivered)

      If you’d care to resume your duties as JNeuhoff and answer my last question

      “we just come back to the same old roadblock how is that paid for?”

      Maybe we could have a sensible debate, until you answer that question its hard to see how anyone can take you seriously.

    4. Avatar FibreFred says:

      @Raindrops

      Seriously? You also think I’m MikeW

      /sigh

  13. Mark Jackson Mark Jackson says:

    Some of the commenters here need to find other things to do than continuing on pointless drivel like this over a weekend. In a number of cases it’s crossed into the usual trolling behavior and my past warnings about that are typically ignored, which means erasing related posts. But for now.. comments closed.

    http://io9.com/why-do-trolls-annoy-you-online-because-theyre-sadists-1522842115

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
  • NOW £22.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £22.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERSPRING
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*36.52)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £24.00 (*44.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Offer Code: SPRUCE20
  • Vodafone £26.00 (*29.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £28.00 (*44.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £29.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERSPRING
  • TalkTalk £29.95 (*39.95)
    Speed: 145Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3206)
  2. BT (2920)
  3. FTTC (1849)
  4. Building Digital UK (1848)
  5. Politics (1827)
  6. Openreach (1745)
  7. Business (1588)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1371)
  9. FTTH (1355)
  10. Statistics (1346)
  11. 4G (1181)
  12. Fibre Optic (1127)
  13. Wireless Internet (1107)
  14. Virgin Media (1101)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1095)
  16. EE (785)
  17. Vodafone (777)
  18. TalkTalk (735)
  19. Sky Broadband (714)
  20. 5G (664)
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