Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

UPDATE UK Government Reveals Full BDUK BT “Fibre Broadband” Uptake Figures

Saturday, December 20th, 2014 (8:15 am) - Score 5,538

After repeated Freedom of Information (FoI) requests we’re pleased to report that the Government has finally agreed to release the full consumer take-up figures for their Broadband Delivery UK project’s national roll-out of faster “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) connectivity, which is dominated by BT. The tiny rural county of Rutland dominates with an impressive score of 32.7%.

Regular readers will know that ISPreview.co.uk and in particular the tireless efforts of Patrick Cosgrove, from the Shropshire and Marches Broadband Campaign, have both been working hard to push for the release of more take-up data, which is useful in order to judge the project’s progress and asses how much benefit might be derived from the claw-back mechanism.

The BDUK contracts vary, but most state that take-up beyond 20% could trigger a return of some of the original investment (claw-back) and this might then be used to further extend coverage. One particularly optimistic estimate predicted that if 50% take-up were ever achieved, across the whole of the United Kingdom, then that could be worth as much as £270m.

Unfortunately gaining access to this data has, until only very recently, been incredibly difficult due to the often flat refusals of BT, BDUK and Local Authorities to publish it. More often than not we’ve been told that the related groups simply didn’t hold such data or that the information was considered “commercially confidential” (i.e. not publishable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). This is despite state aid rules making it a requirement to track and report such data transparently.

But as ISPreview.co.uk readers know we finally had a breakthrough last month when, after repeated attempts, several BDUK projects (e.g. Wales, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire etc.) released the data they held via several FoI requests (here). The development meant it was possible to pursue the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and ask them to publish all of the currently available take-up data to September 2014, which they initially refused due to the usual “commercial interests” catch.

The good news is that at the start of this week the DCMS finally agreed to investigate “whether the balance of the public interest lies in our providing you with the information or in maintaining the exemption and withholding the information” and has now “determined that the information should be released“.

BDUK Take-up Data (Sept 2014)

Berkshire Councils 2.6%
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire 14.6% **
Cambridgeshire, Peterborough 13.2% *
Central Beds, Bedford Borough, Milton Keynes 4.9%
Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester, Warrington, Halton 12.6% *
Devon & Somerset (including, Plymouth, Torbay, North Somerset, Bath & NE Somerset) – No data currently available
Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire 7.8%
Cumbria 13.3%*
Derbyshire 3.4%
Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole 7.2%*
Durham, Gateshead, Tees Valley and Sunderland 6.3%*
East Riding of Yorkshire 1.4%
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 5.8%
Essex, Southend-On-Sea, Thurrock 4.7%*
Greater Manchester 0.4%
Hampshire 16.5%*
Herefordshire and Gloucestershire 13.4%*
Isle of Wight 1.7%
Kent and Medway 7.7%
Lancashire, Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen 10.2%*
Leicestershire 8.11%**
Lincolnshire 11.2%**
Merseyside 2.7%
Newcastle upon Tyne 2.4%
Norfolk 9.7%*
North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire 4.2%
North Yorkshire 17%
Northamptonshire 5.1%
Northumberland 8.2%
Nottinghamshire 1.5%
Oxfordshire 7.9%
Rutland 32.7%
Shropshire 7.9%*
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent 3.7%
Suffolk 16.3%**
Surrey 19%
West Sussex 6.5%
West Yorkshire 3.3%
Wiltshire, South Gloucestershire 7.1%
Worcestershire 3.2%*

* Data provided directly by the Local Authority.
** Data provided directly by the Local Authority, albeit for November 2014.

Some of the take-up figures are considerably lower than others, although this can be due to a combination of factors. For example, some BDUK projects are at a later stage of development (e.g. Rutland, with the highest take-up, finished BDUK phase 1 earlier this year).

On top of that other issues can also play their part, such as the higher prices of FTTC/P “fibre broadband” connectivity, consumers being locked into long contracts with their existing ISP, a lack of general awareness of the new connectivity or interest (i.e. if you have a decent ADSL2+ speed then you might be less inclined to upgrade immediately) and concerns over the ease of migration etc.

Ultimately take-up tends to grow more slowly with general deployments, which compares with the higher adoption under demand-led schemes. However strictly demand driven projects are more targeted, but also suffer due to limited coverage.

Broadly speaking the figures are perhaps what we’d expect to see at this stage of development, with most BDUK schemes running for 3 years until 2016 and then another extension is likely to take them to 2017/18 in order to meet the 95% coverage target for superfast broadband speeds.

We anticipate that the Government will now publish regular updates on this side of the project.

UPDATE:

Forgot to mention, the data above is only for England since Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland filter the funding through their own local government schemes and would thus require additional requests. We do of course already have the figures for Wales, as linked earlier in the article, although the others will require separate requests.

In addition, Cornwall isn’t included because it’s not a BDUK project and some other areas are excluded because they’re only part of the Phase 2 scheme and thus contracts are still being finalised (i.e. nothing to report yet).

UPDATE 23rd Dec 2014:

Some more data now published here. The take-up figures for N.Ireland (0.4%), Rest of Scotland (5.81%), Wales (10.9%) and Scotland’s Highlands and Islands (6.7%). Take note that Scotland’s project took a bit longer to get going than some of the others.

Leave a Comment
137 Responses
  1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

    It’s good to see numbers starting to appear. I never did buy into that story it was to do with commercial interests.

    Personally I would like to see something a bit more sophisticated than the raw take-up rates at any given point in time, especially as this is a rolling programme with different projects at different points in time. So something like the take-up rates at periods after enablement would be nice (like the stats published by the Welsh project). So figures for (say) enablement +6 months, +12 months, +18 months etc. along with absolute figures would be good.

    In any project which runs over several years there tends to be a build-up over time, and early numbers are often not good indicators.

    nb. one thing that BDUK might want to consider is leafleting the relevant premises when each area is enabled with and advice pack. Perhaps not immediately afterwards (to allow the initial order peak to pass), but one of the things that is often claimed is people are unaware of when their area is enabled and also that some think it’s automatic. Royal Mail have fairly cheap ways of sending out advertising by postal areas (at least I assume it must be cheap given the number of VM mail shots I get).

    1. Avatar Pedrostech says:

      I got a letter from Superfast Surrey saying my cabinet was going live soon and to check their checker…the cabinet didn’t go live for about another four months!

  2. Avatar NGA for all says:

    The most immediate matter is to reconcile actual costs minus BT’s capital contribution to the milestone payments. This was referred to directly at EFRA select committee on Dec – see the answer to q195. ‘Significant savings from Phase 1’ was referenced but no detail given.
    These monies can be added to the USC premiums now accumulating in BT’s acounts. The calwback of the take up premium can be added later.

    The big problem will be the lack of BT resources and indeed FTTP expertise to conduct the work as the truth about the funding emerges with the money sitting in BT’s accounts but no resource to conduct work beyond FTTC cabinet deployment.

    I see Shropshire referenced £2m of the £16m in potential clawback. A further £1 to £1.5m in USC and plus ‘significant savings from phase 1’ will point to about £6m-£7m in total sitting in BT accounts for this one county for phase 1 with the resources being transferred to other counties as Phase 1 completes and the utility of FTTC in meeting coverage is exhausted.

    Multiply that by 40 plus counties and 2 devolved administrations and you will see why 2020 was being referenced at EFRA. Bur unless the counties are reconciling actuals versus milestones, BT will be free to use that money as it wishes.

  3. Avatar Martin adams says:

    Simply put, percentages are fine but they do not really tell the story.

    If only 50 users sign up in and area with 1000 potential users of fttc, a 10% take up is pretty poor in my opinion.
    All we seem to be doing is making yet more excuses for failing to deliver in a timely fashion a service that had we seen real competition allowed to get involved from the start, would now see rural broadband coverage which is what this funding was initially for, well on its way to completion and the take up would have been much higher.
    In my area which has a 14.7% take up only 2 in 10 services are able to get connected.
    Pity full take up is not because people don’t want it or can’t afford the connection fee, but because we are still not getting anything like the roll out we were promised.
    In my opinion in 2020 we will be looking again at spending more money to improve upload of the service now being rolled out as demand grows. So far from keeping pace with demand we are actually in real terms going backwards as all of this is taking far to long.

    I

    1. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      The percentages do tell the story – they’re the uptake on BDUK enabled cabinets. They’re not the total uptake throughout the region; I’ve not seen anyone quote that anywhere and it’d be quite inappropriate to do so.

      Uptake = Premises subscribed / premises passed.

    2. Avatar DTMark says:

      “Uptake = Premises subscribed / premises passed.”

      Can we get the figures for:

      “Superfast broadband Uptake = Premises subscribed / premises passed by superfast broadband.”

      I guess not. Thinking of here, with 50/50 from 4G, a downgrade to VDSL would be a downgrade too far.

    3. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Then you’re all set, so no need to bemoan lack of SFBB again 🙂

  4. Avatar Martin adams says:

    Sorry, I can’t add up, it should read 5% which is even worse!

  5. Avatar X66yh says:

    Surely the real message is that away from the excitable on broadband forums the reality is that most people in the BDUK enabled areas do not give a toss about faster broadband.

    1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      Yes, but with caveats. I think those who can’t do things like use iPlayer will be enthusiastic, but for many, as long at they get a reliable 5mbps, then they might not be too interested, especially if it costs a bit more.

      There will be a gradual move to consume more bandwidth, so I’m sure there will be an increase in take-up. The most obvious driver is, of course, access to streamed video/film services. Whilst I don’t think that 4K is important enough to many people to drive that, “standard” HD probably is, and then 10mbps+ becomes more important.

      We’ll see, but I think anybody expecting an explosion in demand in areas with “acceptable” ADSL2+ services probably doesn’t have a good grasp on the average person’s requirements. However, equally I’d be surprised if in 5 years time these average figures aren’t in the 30%+ region, especially if the wholesale price is reduced (which I expect) and the prices are closer to ADSL2+.

    2. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Spot on Mr Jones. We are a great case in point; onto our second Huawei 288 just been built to serve this PCP and uptake initially >50% on the first as speeds ranged from 0.5Mb to very rarely 2Mb with the average around the 1.5Mb mark.

      I should clarify the ‘initially’ is due to more premises being constructed after the first Huawei was full. Still a fair amount of pent up demand there hence the second cabinet being another big Huawei.

  6. Avatar DTMark says:

    Are we to infer that none of the areas being discussed, are cabled?

    Another dynamic would be those who do want fast speeds, had cable, tried VDSL, and after 12 or 18 months cancel that and go back to cable for better performance.

    1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      Most BDUK areas will not be cabled as they will have been ruled out during the OMR process as cable qualifies as NG). A small amount of overlap is allowed under EU rules as a certain amount is inevitable as there isn’t a clean demarcation point between coverage of a cabinet and cable coverage.

      Note that not all phone lines are enabled for ADSL either. It would be interesting to know how many are in the relevant area is it might give a better idea of the potential FTTC market rather than just a cabinet line count.

      If BDUK encroached substantively on VM territory, you can guarantee that there would have been major objections.

    2. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Some collateral damage but relatively very few premises that had cable and were enabled under BDUK.

    3. Avatar GNewton says:

      “Are we to infer that none of the areas being discussed, are cabled?”

      There are quite a few Essex BDUK areas which are also covered by Virgin Media cable. This pointed out to the Essex CC, but they just keep silent on this issue.

    4. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Some examples of VM areas please.

    5. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      @The Facts

      Seriously? You want some examples of VM areas when it covers half the households in the country? Well, there’s the one I live in (west of Maidenhead, but it covers most of the town), Slough, Aylesbury, Guidlford, Bracknell, Luton, Leighton Buzzard, then there’s the majority of London boroughs. Is that enough? There are many, many more.

    6. Avatar TheFacts says:

      VM areas covered by BDUK!

    7. Avatar No Clue says:

      Ive already given one of your alternate idiot guises an example in Essex.

    8. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Please list quite a few.

    9. Avatar No Clue says:

      Why should i now list a few????. You first wanted some one to name “one”, i have, now you want more like a spoilt child that can not admit it was wrong. Virgin is in areas BDUK has given BT money for end off.

    10. Avatar No Clue says:

      Oh what the heck may as well make you look totally stupid while we are at it, Its worse than just Virgin already being in parts of Essex where BT have managed to get money in their begging bowl, most of it is also already covered by these…
      http://tinyurl.com/osgr29s
      You can get an upto 100Mb connection from those people across a large chunk of Essex already. So much for BT and the BT fanboys claiming BT do not overbuild.

    11. Avatar TheFacts says:

      CM8 3PQ is not a VM area according to their checker and uswitch.com.

      BDUK rollout in wireless areas is well documented.

      Did you not know about the BT financial contribution?

    12. Avatar No Clue says:

      http://postimg.org/image/5hmu9uv4x/

      Clearly that is a 150Mb Virgin product in an area BT have had funding.

      You also fail to explain the wireless provider that covers more than a good chunk of Essex with upto 100Mb being there before BT and BT grabbing government cash to overbuild in their area also.

      Good try again but again you just look like a clueless BT employee spreading lies.

    13. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Others can check that postcode. It was a government decision regarding coverage.

    14. Avatar No Clue says:

      Which postcode are you on about from http://tinyurl.com/osgr29s that service covers most of Essex. There was no need for any funding of BT in Essex they already had services exceeding 30Mb available. Any BT funding in Essex be it local authority or BDUK is therefore over build.

      As to Church road ive already explained to you what happened there and that screengrab despite your pathetic attempt clearly shows Virgin is available at number 1 Church Road.

      Instead of being a complete idiot why do you not actually look at the evidence that shows you are wrong. You might actually then be taken seriously instead of just a typical BT worker tool.

    15. Avatar Gadget says:

      No Clue. it appears from here (http://www.superfastessex.org/en-gb/faqs.aspx response 13) that Essex do not currently consider wireless to be a suitable technology, which means that any coverage offered is not considered overbuild by them, so pretty though the map is it does not appear to currently carry any weight with them.

    16. Avatar FibreFred says:

      lol oh dear 🙂

    17. Avatar No Clue says:

      Oh dear indeed then again i expect nothing but lies from the BT and government collusion. Either funding is for “superast” (over 24Mb) or it isnt? which is it? Please one name only you do not need to agree with yourself.

    18. Avatar GNewton says:

      “it appears from here (http://www.superfastessex.org/en-gb/faqs.aspx response 13) that Essex do not currently consider wireless to be a suitable technology”

      Until not too long ago, Essex CC used to support various long-distance wireless nextgen broadband projects. Try and find an old cache of the former http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/dis/ned.jsp?channelOid=124288&guideOid=124161&oid=150824 link conveniently removed from the EssexCC website after EssexCC decided to ditch all its support for this. Even some district councils in Essex used to have plans to support some wireless providers, again now mostly squashed by the EssexCC BDUK overbuilds using poorer technologies.

      So far, the whole Essex BDUK has been an expensive farce at the expense of taxpayer’s money, with some known examples of where more than £2400.00 per VDSL line was spent.

      Scrap the BDUK!

    19. Avatar No Clue says:

      Indeed they did…
      http://postimg.org/image/54rcl0su9/

      Idiot boy just has no clue again.

    20. Avatar Gadget says:

      And the image refers to a web-page over 4 years old, so whilst it confirms that was the view then, it has obviously changed to the current page/position

    21. Avatar No Clue says:

      No thats just the only archive i could find to the wireless scheme.

      And ya still an idiot troll thats wrong because the council are still a partner of the BUZCOM wifi scheme…..
      click this…
      http://www.buzcom.net/fibrewifi.html
      now click the
      http://www.fibrewifi.com link at the bottom
      now go to the bottom of the page and click the partners link which takes you here…
      http://www.fibrewifi.com/about-us/partners

      OH LOOK dumb dumb Essex county council

    22. Avatar No Clue says:

      Oh and before you act will a typical silly remark saying the council link does not work thats irrelevant as….

      https://www.maldon.gov.uk/LDP/pre-submission/7%20Implementation%20and%20Monitoring/EB059c%20Maldon%20District%20Infrastructure%20Delivery%20Plan%20December%20Update.pdf

      Thats Decemeber 2013, see page 90, oh look Essex County Council and Buzcom are lead agencies. The other being BT.

      Unless you have any evidence this has changed in the space of 1 year and now its only BT then please take your ill informed (AGAIN) nonsense elsewhere.

  7. Avatar gerarda says:

    Even allowing for different stages of rollout it does show the nonsense of the inside out approach to improving broadband in this country. There are still many times more people stuck with no coverage or sub 2mb lines than have taken up the BDUL funded FTTC

    1. Avatar TheFacts says:

      That is the sensible way to do it.

    2. Avatar NGA for all says:

      @thefacts Yes, but not if BT can play a ‘catch us if you can’ with the funding using the milstone payment process agreed just before the Olympics.
      A flat c £200 a premise passed is not gap funding, the actual cost minus BT contribution must be sought and monies released from phase 1 payments asap.

      Combine, USC premiums, the rbasly named ‘efficiency saving’ and the future clawback. By performing the cost reconciliation fully, some of what would be considered clawback would appear earlier. Put together it will be consistently 35-40%+ percent of what was contracted.

      This will not solve the resource problem.

    3. Avatar gerarda says:

      Hardly a sensible use of government funding when even on the best case 67.3% was wasted, and on BTs expectationds 80% of it will be.

    4. Avatar TheFacts says:

      What do you mean by wasted?

    5. Avatar GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: “What do you mean by wasted?”

      Anybody with some clear thinking ability can easily see what a waste of money the various BDUK schemes really were. These takeup figures are actually far worse than I expected them to be. I know of quite a few cases where the cost per installed BDUK-VDSL line is over £2000, and these weren’t even in the remote country site.

    6. Avatar TheFacts says:

      What takeup would you expect after 6, 12, 18 months? You need to look long term.

    7. Avatar No Clue says:

      Except some of those locations have been up far longer than 18 months. It would help if you had any idea about things before you spoke.

    8. Avatar GNewton says:

      “What has doing anything in another country got to do with doing the same in the UK?”

      Only a user of this BT-loser what ask such a question, a typical sympton of the “Can’t Do” culture so prevalent in this country. Users can’t think out of the box, they can’t see through the ASA ‘fibre-broadband’ fraud, they can’t do their own research, they can’t organise local campaigns to get proper telecom services, they are unable to see through the BDUK-farce. Makes me wonder how on earth the UK ever managed to install electricity to all the households, or supply them with water pipes. Something is seriously wrong in this country now!

      A more relevant question to ask is this: How can a poorer country like Spain do so much better than the UK as regards fibre-optic broadband? What lessons can this country learn from it?

    9. Avatar FibreFred says:

      You can’t even keep your replies in the correct thread 🙂

      I knew it would go into the “Can’t do” category, that’s what you do when you don’t understand/don’t have the answer

      I see you’ve failed to reply to Ignition’s point that Spain already had a load of fibre out there already and just built upon it, I wonder why you didn’t reply?

      Keep on blighting on about Spain it doesn’t make any argument at all, you are comparing apples with motorbikes, but carry on with your festive funnies.

    10. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Not many BDUK locations have been around for more than 18 months.

    11. Avatar No Clue says:

      Suffolk (as an example in that list) applied for BDUK funding back in 2011. It was approved before the end of 2011 and BT won the contract before the end of 2012… Thats a lot more than 18 months dumb dumb

    12. Avatar No Clue says:

      Indeed it took BT almost another year after winning the contract in 2012 to actually get off their backside and do the work.

  8. Avatar fastman2 says:

    its is also up to the Local Authorities to advertise some people stil think it happses automoatcially , some serice providers (especiallu LLU ones) wil not want to offer you superfast as it could detract from their margin — so much mis informaiton around you actually have to buy a service

  9. Avatar fastman2 says:

    Gnewton i assume thats because you dont get any benefit from it ?

  10. Avatar fastman2 says:

    the current view seems to be dont care how many premises you covered or have acccess to surperfast why have you not done me !!!!

    1. Avatar X66yh says:

      Welcome to the world of internet forums – a place where posters seem to think the world revolves around what they want and that companies with millions of customers are supposed to change their policies just for one person.

    2. Avatar gerarda says:

      No the current view from those in the worst areas is the the USC should have taken priority of upgrading in areas where 80% dont want to be updraded.

  11. Avatar tim says:

    the cowboys at work bodging the wires 😀

    1. Avatar No Clue says:

      And the cowboys in here telling us its all a good job 😀

    2. Avatar tim says:

      no clue I don’t know where the good work is 😀

    3. Avatar No Clue says:

      Well the little BT workers spieling their flem in here think its good work 😀

  12. Avatar Chris Conder says:

    Take up on the B4RN network is sometimes 100%. never less than 60%. Just sayin.
    I think this report proves what a previous commenter said, that FTTC is only provided where people already have what they think are fairly good connections, so why change? that is why the funding should have gone to altnets, who would go the extra mile to where the customers need a better service. Then take up would have been better, as B4RN and others are proving, and therefore the money could have been paid back to help even more areas, whereas giving it to obsolete cabinets is just such a waste. A dead end.

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      “Take up on the B4RN network is sometimes 100%. never less than 60%. Just sayin.”

      There’s no comparison between the two , not much point in sayin

      “I think this report proves what a previous commenter said, that FTTC is only provided where people already have what they think are fairly good connections”

      Except… as I’ve told you before and a quick look on the comments on this very site (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/uk-isp-plusnet-cuts-superfast-unlimited-fibre-broadband-prices.html) that isn’t true at all.

    2. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Ask Hyperoptic how they are doing as far as takeup of their 20Mb, 100Mb and 1Gb services are going.

      Or ask Virgin which of the 50Mb, 100Mb and 152Mb they sell the most of.

      You are on 1Gb and are commenting on the digital divide. BDUK is delivering more FTTP to rural and semi-rural areas than is available in our cities outside of Hyperoptic’s apartment blocks. If anything *I* should be complaining about a digital divide given largely urban taxes are funding FTTP in more rural areas.

      If you disagree try showing some evidence for a change rather than a flood of opinions.

      The takeup of B4RN is irrelevant. It’s no more relevant than to be honest the take up of FTTC is here. Takeup of both is community driven, so if you are able to crow about B4RN’s take up I’m able to crow about shifting 288 FTTC connections here in 4 months of service availability. Neither actually matter in the grand scheme of things and neither can be extrapolated across the 28 million premises in the UK.

      As far as value for the taxpayer goes 20% takeup across an area that required £200 per home passed in subsidies is better value than 50% takeup across an area that required £600 per home passed in subsidies.

      The aim of BDUK was to pass as many premises as possible as quickly as possible, not to build from the outside and work back in. That would’ve taken too long and been too expensive.

    3. Avatar gerarda says:

      but an 80% take up in an area which cost £1000 premise would be the same cost per premise as 20% for £200 and achieve four times the real impact.

    4. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      You’d need a 100% take up at £1,000 per premises passed to match the costs of a 20% take up at £200 per premises passed, and of course take up is a gradual thing. Inevitably take up of FTTC or its successors will be 100% at some point.

      BDUK is about passing as many premises as possible as quickly as possible for as low a cost as possible.

      Interesting how people bemoan the ‘digital divide’ but advocate having public money pass 1/5th the amount of premises it could and hence ensure that 1/5th the people get the option for the foreseeable future.

    5. Avatar gerarda says:

      “Passing” is an irrelevant statistic when judging value for money. It is take up that counts which is why the worst areas should have been done first.

    6. Avatar Gadget says:

      Take-up is important if you want to balance the books, but the bottom line is availability of >24Mbps (or 30Mbps)for all is the goal. If you were just looking at take-up then you’d probably stop rollout at a lower figure as the Pareto effect kicks in.

    7. Avatar No Clue says:

      Balance what books??? When it comes to the BDUK BT didnt pay anything.

    8. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Each BDUK area has had a BT contribution.

    9. Avatar No Clue says:

      Yes BT have contributed their ineptness and greed in every BDUK project

    10. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Please explain in more detail.

    11. Avatar TheFacts says:

      eg. Norfolk – BT will make a £11 million contribution towards the cost of installing the fibre infrastructure, bringing the total investment in the project to £41 million.

    12. Avatar FibreFred says:

      He’s just trolling TheFacts which if he bothered to look at the bottom of the page is against site rules

      He knows BT have made massive monetary contributions but is trying to bait people into an argument

      Standard troll behaviour

    13. Avatar No Clue says:

      “He knows BT have made massive monetary contributions”

      I know no such thing, i do not live in your alternate universe.

    14. Avatar GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: You are hopeless. learn how to use Google.

      To see how much of a ‘Can’t Do’ loser culture the UK has become as regards telecoms, here is one example from Telefonica in Spain:

      Telefonica plans to further accelerate the deployment of its FTTH network in Spain over the next five years, bringing fibre to all localities with a population over 1,000 inhabitants by 2020, according to Telefonica Espana CEO Luis Gilperez Miguel. Speaking at the Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona, Gilperez said the process would involve closing down practically the entire copper network through which the operator provides ADSL services

      For anybody else who is smart enough to do some online searches: http://www.telecompaper.com/news/ is a good starting point, in addition to Google searches.

    15. Avatar FibreFred says:

      What has doing anything in another country got to do with doing the same in the UK?

      You might as well be telling us how cheap China can make iPhones compared to if they did in the UK.

      What Spain is doing isn’t valid comparison at all, that seems to fail to register with you completely.

    16. Avatar No Clue says:

      Yeah what Spain is doing has nothing to do with the UK…….. Oh except for government and BT promises of “best broadband in Europe by 2015”

      How quick idiot BT workers forget that

    17. Avatar FibreFred says:

      …more trolling/abuse

    18. Avatar No Clue says:

      More making you look an idiot you mean

    19. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Telefonica are retiring copper and rationalising exchanges into NGA nodes.

      We have tons of LLU and TalkTalk and Sky, would be up in arms and banging down Ofcom’s door if BT announced they wanted to remove the copper their LLU equipment relies on, close down the exchanges their LLU equipment lives in, and force them to use bitstream wholesale fibre-based access products rather than being able to shift extremely cheap ADSL as a ‘value add’.

    20. Avatar No Clue says:

      I fail to see why they would have to remove the copper network at all or upset LLU providers. If the government and BT believe and claim we will have the best broadband in Europe perhaps they should deliver on their claims for once. Rather than claim something they can not deliver and then make excuses about cost, maybe they should had looked at cost before opening gobs and looking stupid?

      Of course everyone except a small amount of idiot BT employees and the government knew waaaaaaaayyyyy back this country would never have the best broadband in Europe, a quick search on here finds this….
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/11/10/uk-isps-believe-the-country-will-not-have-the-best-broadband-in-europe-by-2015.html

      No doubt the BT dullard which raised its hand back then, still believes the half baked roll out here is the best in Europe.

    21. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Simple – most of the business case behind the Telefonica rollout is based on not having to maintain a copper network – pure fibre networks reduce maintenance costs by 2/3rds.

      This is the same business case behind Verizon’s FiOS network.

      If Telefonica were not closing exchanges and removing copper they wouldn’t be doing this.

      While it pains me a little bit to admit it BT have shown, via 21CN, that they are willing to spend money replacing obsolete components. Had they been allowed to obsolesce the copper network we would, no question, have had way more FTTP in the commercial deployment.

      As it was the option was a ‘good enough for now’ solution that was faster to roll out. Don’t underestimate the roll of politics in it all either. What the government wanted to be able to claim meant that FTTP on a massive scale wasn’t feasible as there simply wasn’t time to deploy it. FTTP is a way more time consuming deployment than FTTC and it would’ve been pretty much impossible to pass 2/3rds of the UK by this year.

      BT are the ‘easy’ target but a fair amount of criticism can and should be aimed at politicians, Ofcom and the UK’s LLU and broadband market as a whole, too.

    22. Avatar No Clue says:

      Or short version they took the cheap option, lied about being the best in Europe, failed to meet expectations with the percentage which would get FTTP and now just look totally inept.

    23. Avatar FibreFred says:

      It was the numpty Jeremy hunt that stated best in Europe and then failed to define what was meant by best

    24. Avatar No Clue says:

      And it was a numpty BT worker that raised its hand thinking we would have the best in europe wasnt it…
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/11/10/uk-isps-believe-the-country-will-not-have-the-best-broadband-in-europe-by-2015.html

    25. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Yep one nameless guy having to show support for the numpty politicians goal.

      As I said… it was a government goal, we all know how well their goals turn out

    26. Avatar No Clue says:

      And in addition to BT muppets raising their hands to thinking the will be “best in Europe” we then have BT muppets claiming they are the “vanguard” of broadband deployment.
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/11/bt-claims-uk-is-already-in-the-vanguard-of-eu-fibre-broadband-deployment.html

      The only thing they are leading is speaking crap. SO no its both the government and the BT muppets that think they are both wonderful.

  13. Avatar Con Bradley says:

    These figures are for England only, I thought the UK in BDUK meant The UK or has BT redefined UK as Superfast Egland. Also what’s happened to Cornwall? Also, It’s not acceptable for Devon and Somerset to simply say no information available. Really dreadful figures.

    1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      Cornwall is not part of BDUK (neither was Northern Ireland). In the case of Wales and Scotland, whilst central government funding was made available, those projects essentially run in parallel under the aegis of the relevant devolved administrations. The Scottish project is called “Digital Scotland” and the Welsh version is Superfast Cymru. I suspect DCMS don’t want to step on the toes of the devolved authorities. Indeed, Superfast Cymru have released their own stats, albeit in a different form.

  14. Avatar dragoneast says:

    As the old saying goes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”.

    1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      But it will, eventually, get thirsty. It just won’t drink to order.

  15. Avatar Chris Conder says:

    Agree FibreFred, there is no comparison. A full symmetrical fibre network cannot be compared to a bodged up copper one. But if the funding had been spent with altnets we would now have some real competition and BT would have to upgrade or lose customers.
    There are millions who won’t be helped by FTTC because their lines are too old or too long. Those that can be helped are fairly close to the cab, so already have a service. BT are just cherrypicking the low hanging fruit and not going the extra mile. The digital divide grows ever wider. Public money is being wasted. IF BT want to do patch ups with their own money that is fine, its good business for them, saves them investing. But it isn’t fine to use public money for such a slap dash fix that only helps those near cabs.

    1. Avatar TheFacts says:

      How much funding would have to be provided for a FTTP rollout in an area to cover all properties compared with FTTC?

    2. Avatar FibreFred says:

      No point asking her questions like that, she won’t respond.

      The spending of public money was and is a government choice, BT (and others) simply bid for it

    3. Avatar X66yh says:

      No, the FTTP for everyone group never respond to the two questions that they always get asked
      1. How much is it going to cost to FTTP 100% of the UK’s properties?
      2. How long would it be before 100% of the UK’s properties get FTTP?

      We all know FTTP is the best, but FTTC/BDUK represents the most pragmatic way to get the best possible upgrade in speed to the most people in the quickest time for the least overall cost. There are villages now getting a much faster service from FTTC. The 100% FTTP enthusiasts would have them still on 1Mbps and waiting another 5 to 10 years before full fibre got to them.
      (no I’m not one of them – local cab’s excluded from BDUK)

      Yes, some will loose out in some way – just as many don’t have a main gas supply.

    4. Avatar GNewton says:

      “How much funding would have to be provided for a FTTP rollout in an area to cover all properties compared with FTTC?”

      It was shown to TheFacts where and how to find the answer to this on previous forum threads, but he’s not interested in it. It was shown to him how other countries like Spain are doing fibre for a fraction of the costs compared to the UK, but didn’t seem to register it.

    5. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Your quote that Spain does FTTP for €60 per premises is valid?

    6. Avatar GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: Still haven’t learnt how to use Google?

      https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=telefonica+fibre+spain&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

      Also, have you ever finished your research to answer the questions raised a few months ago? Or have you all forgotten about?

      Finally, how are your Freedom of Information requests going?

    7. Avatar TheFacts says:

      It’s to properties in cities, where in the UK we have VM.

    8. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Wonder if people trumpeting Telefonica are aware that they had pre-existing fibre in some apartment blocks and used that.

      I can find nothing about E60 per premises passed. That would be the cheapest FTTP deployment in the world. Hyperoptic would be the closest comparison to here and their costs are above that on their FTTB solution. Even on FTTP networks using pre-existing poles costs are £400-ish per premises passed along with another few hundred £ to connect each property when service is ordered.

      There is no way that Telefonica or anyone else, even using completely pre-existing ducting, is deploying FTTP for E60 without extensive pre-existing cabling, switch/OLT ports, etc.

    9. Avatar themanstan says:

      60 euros for FTTP in Spain is perfectly possible for “flagship” programmes, all you have to do is encourage people to live in apartment blocks with 20 to 120 domiciles in each block.

      The majority of housing in Spanish cities are apartment blocks

    10. Avatar No Clue says:

      That would not help even when there are a bunch of people in flats/apartments BT can not connect them…
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/11/bbc-watchdog-scalds-bt-openreach-new-home-install-delays.html

    11. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Again trolling

    12. Avatar No Clue says:

      AGAIN showing BT are inept

    13. Avatar MikeW says:

      @themanstan

      Yup. Huge difference.

      UK: 18% of housing is flats (2nd lowest percentage in Europe)
      Spain: 66% is flats (3rd highest)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Europe

    14. Avatar FibreFred says:

      So apparently that is what we need to learn from Spain according to GNewton, move enmasse people into flats so broadband is cheaper to supply

      He’s on the ball that one, lets do it, otherwise its a Can’t do attitude

    15. Avatar DTMark says:

      What makes people imagine that government, sorry, I mean, taxpayer funding, would be required to get significant amounts of FTTP rolled out?

      I suspect the answer is “I work for BT”.

    16. Avatar FibreFred says:

      ^ commercial viability I guess , if it was viable we would have tons if isp’s doing it, if Bt don’t thing it’s viable what are the excuses of other ISPs ? Why arnt others doing it ?

    17. Avatar No Clue says:

      LMAO and you think with FTTC take up on average being around 15% thats economically viable? I thought the banks did a bad job, it would had been even worse with a genius like you in charge.

    18. Avatar FibreFred says:

      The bduk areas are not commercially viable hence the funding , another well thought out response, congrats

    19. Avatar GNewton says:

      @FibreFred: “UK: 18% of housing is flats (2nd lowest percentage in Europe)”

      So how many of these are currently being provided with fibre?

      Instead of your usual insults, calling them trolls, you could have actually done some research, you’d quickly see there is much more to it than just having a higher percentage of flats. The wrong BDUK approach, using the wrong technology in the UK, overbuilding multiple areas in the UK with hybrid-fibre networks, red tape bureaucrcy, an incompetent Ofcom who doesn’t do its job, an ASA who doesn’t even what ‘fibre-broadband’ is, property developers who moan about having to provide infrastructure to support fibre on new estates, this all adds up to the loser-mentatility in this country.

      Meantime, you should apologise to all those who you have insulted during the past few days, calling them trolls, or accusing other of using multiple ids. And then show some respect other user’s opinions even if they differ from yours.

    20. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Gnewton I’ll call out trolling if I see it , it’s not an insult if its actually happening

      You are comparing Spain to the uk and asking how they can rollout FTTP cheap when we can’t

      I’ve told you there’s no comparison , Spain already had a good chunk of FTTP to build on anyway and on top of they Spain has a much higher percentage of mdu’s which make FTTP delivery much cheaper ( just ask hyperoptic )

      So there’s your answer , no need to shift your argument into something else, you asked why the difference there’s two good ones for starters

    21. Avatar GNewton says:

      @FibreFred: I take you are not willing to apologise to posters here for your insults.

      @Mark Jackson: Can you please remind posters here to stop insulting other users here, or ban FibreFred from here?

    22. Avatar FibreFred says:

      I’m not sure what I would be apologising for , are you confusing my posts for No clues? As his ( as usual ) contain plenty of personal abuse

    23. Avatar No Clue says:

      “Not commercially viable” according to who the BT can not count or connect people department?

    24. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      ’60 euros for FTTP in Spain is perfectly possible for “flagship” programmes, all you have to do is encourage people to live in apartment blocks with 20 to 120 domiciles in each block.’

      7,200 Euros to deploy FTTP to a building and build 120 drops?

      Telefonica were using some pre-existing ‘vertical’ fibre within buildings, however looking at costs of other rollouts E250 / premises is roughly the cost even with the pre-existing fibre.

      Their cities are high density, ours are extended suburbs and we love our semi-detached too much.

      Worth noting that BT claimed FTTP in the UK would cost about 4 times as much as FTTC, which is a cost of £320-£400ish per premises passed. That’s encouraging for the longer term.

    25. Avatar No Clue says:

      BT obviously do not think flats are even commercially viable for FTTC let alone FTTP based on them failing to connect 30+ people for over 7 months. Obviously were not in much of a hurry to make money there, or more likely the network is so old and run down it would had cost them money and hard work to get those 30 connected.

  16. Avatar Kits says:

    I still think the money from the government should have been used in the areas that are still on ADSLmax. This is not acceptable to move part of the exchanges onto 21cn then start to upgrade those again to FTTC while many are still stuck on old outdated technology.

    FTTC is not as good as it is passed to be speeds drop of faster on VDSL than ADSL so distance from cabinet is crucial to speed. Some have been told they are on cabinet which has VDSL but distance stops them from having FTTC.

    In a word BT has wasted thousands on technology that still has limits, when the funding from governments should have gone into areas BT would reap less profit after all BT wasn’t paying all the costs to connect them.

    Disappointed BT shareholder..

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      I do sympathise getting shut of max would be great but that wasn’t the aimif the bduk project

    2. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      You’re disappointed, as a BT shareholder, that BDUK funds didn’t go into something BT would’ve made no profit on. Interesting.

      Upgrading to 21CN on our tab would be the taxpayer paying for an upgrade to BT Wholesale’s network. That is a big no-no. Sky, TalkTalk, and other LLU operators would, rightly, hit the roof and complaints would’ve piled in to the regulator, as they should.

      FTTC deployments go around this and, as I’m sure a BT shareholder would appreciate, they lay a foundation both for later FTTP deployment and for retiring these legacy exchanges and rationalising the copper network, which is a good thing.

      FTTP would be the ideal, however BDUK was never conceived with that aim and the money was most certainly not there.

    3. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      It’s explicit in the EU deliberations on the state aid case that upgrading from ADSL to ADSL2+ does not count as NGA. They use exactly that example.

      “As explained in paragraph 67 of the State aid Broadband Guidelines, ADSL2+ networks shall be considered as advanced basic broadband networks and not NGA type of networks when considering fixed networks.”

      footnote 20, page 6

      http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/243212/243212_1387832_172_1.pdf

      Note that it doesn’t mean an NGA has to be used to meet the 2Mbps USC, but a straight exchange upgrade to ADSL2+ isn’t going to make a huge difference to currently sub 2Mbps lines.

    4. Avatar MikeW says:

      @SJ
      Though upgrading the cabinet to offer ADSL2+ does stand a chance of making a difference to some.

  17. Avatar Kits says:

    @ FibreFred

    No but the sim was faster BB yet there are some on FTTC still getting less than 24MBits which shows this technology is not the right way yet thousands have been pumped into it instead of finding an alternative that would move us into the next century. VDSL will still need to be totally replaced BT are just delaying this and in the end it will cost more later to replace.

    False economy replace now plus any new property is auto on to the new technology instead of making it old technology and increasing the number of properties that will need to be changed later.

    Slow uptake shows that those in the area they have placed these updates were already happy with the speed they had yet we still hear of ADSL users only attaining sub 1Mbits speed these are the ones that would have taken the move faster instead of 10% the whole area would have jumped to FTTC.

    I am one who has seen three upgrades in my area first from 20cn to 21cn then came FTTC and recently BT have released FTTP.. The uptake for FTTP will be low as this area is also Virgin enabled. The money getting this area to FTTP should have been used in an area that hasn’t got the FTTC or 21cn yet.

    1. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Have BT released FTTP in your area, or FTTP on demand?

      Big difference.

      If they’ve delivered FTTP yours is the only area in the country where BT have, on their own tab, built FTTC then FTTP on top.

  18. Avatar Kits says:

    FTTP on demand is what is released.

    1. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      That costs nothing until someone orders it. All that means is that there’s kit in the exchange which can support FTTP, or at very least support a line card that’ll support FTTP, not that BT have spent money building an FTTP network.

      Massive difference between an FTTP area (very few) and an FTTPoD / FoD area (lots).

    2. Avatar fastman2 says:

      All Fibre on deamnd can only be ordered on an FTTC enabled cab and whre the exchnage is aslo a FOD enabled exchange — FOD is a FTTP circuit from agregation node (not Cab) to your premise and serves you only

    3. Avatar NGA for all says:

      @ Fastman2 FTTP on Demand is little more than use of the spare ports at the handover point and the spare fibres at the AGN.
      Is FTTP availability defined by the installation of a manifold on a DP and supply of fibre to that manifold? What triggers FTTP availability on the availability checker?
      If the state has covered for fibre to the AGN, and the customer pays for the fibre from DP to premise, then this will cheaper than we think, although this points to a transition of all customers.

    4. Avatar MikeW says:

      @NFA: “FTTP on Demand is little more than use of the spare ports at the handover point and the spare fibres at the AGN.”

      Plus:
      – Routing fibre from the AGN to the subscriber; pulling subduct, clearing blocked duct, digging new duct, deploying aerial cable, blowing fibre as necessary, and potentially installing new poles.
      – Installing one or more splitter nodes in the fibre path
      – Installing a fibre DP in the path
      – Installing a fibre manifold in the path
      – Possibly building new footpath chambers for any of the previous 3 items
      – Splicing fibre at the AGN, SPN and FDP
      – Supplying ONT to subscriber

      Just a little more.

      Then the customer pays for (some share of) the work between the AGN and the property, not just from the DP.

  19. Avatar Mike says:

    What a joke. I work in Exeter City and live in Exmouth (Devon’s largest town)nearby. Exeter’s 2 main industrial estates have not got fibre, nor have I at home.

    It seems some rural communities are being placed higher up on the ‘visibility list’ for political purposes, rather than finishing the job off properly where they have started it…

    1. Avatar Phil Coates says:

      It depends where you live. In my neck of the woods which is a largely rural County, all of the local towns have had their ‘uncommercial’ cabinets upgraded by BDUK. The truly rural areas remain firmly in the last 5% expecting a USC of 2Mbps by 2016.

    2. Avatar GNewton says:

      There are quite a few business parks in this country, especially in smaller towns and rural areas, which don’t have adequate fibre-optic services. This is one of the many failures of the BDUK programme.

    3. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Same here Phil depends where you live , I live near to a number if business parks and they all had fttc provides prior to bduk

    4. Avatar No Clue says:

      Must of been the only business park in the country to have FTTC before the BDUK was announced back in 2010.

  20. Avatar Moderation Please says:

    Is ‘Well the little BT workers spieling their flem in here think its good work’ acceptable for a professional forum?

    1. Avatar No Clue says:

      No its not, they should be made to identify themselves as staff, see everything they have to say can be taken as self promoting flem.

    2. Avatar Moderation Please says:

      Is there a reason why you use such language? Describing people as idiots is non-productive for your views.

    3. Avatar No Clue says:

      I could not care less if you think my view is productive or not. It is my opinion, i think BT are idiots, you disagreeing with that view is your opinion. That is the point of having opinions they differ. Its just a pity as by the name you have used this time you do not seem to comprehend personal views and differences.

  21. Avatar david says:

    scamming BT and there FTTC which they want to get it sorted and get there speeds where they say superfast 24mbps which is absolute shambles total idiots

  22. Avatar Brian Heslop says:

    I could fully understand the take up in my area (SW Scotland) to be low. The upgrade project has simply provided high speeds for those living in the towns, who have less need, and done nothing for the truly rural.

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 £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Onestream £22.49 (*29.99)
    Avg. Speed 45Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*36.52)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £55 Reward Card
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (2817)
  2. BT (2793)
  3. FTTC (1792)
  4. Building Digital UK (1760)
  5. Politics (1689)
  6. Openreach (1642)
  7. Business (1456)
  8. FTTH (1341)
  9. Mobile Broadband (1253)
  10. Statistics (1252)
  11. 4G (1079)
  12. Fibre Optic (1072)
  13. Wireless Internet (1036)
  14. Ofcom Regulation (1028)
  15. Virgin Media (1019)
  16. EE (710)
  17. Vodafone (681)
  18. Sky Broadband (675)
  19. TalkTalk (673)
  20. 5G (536)
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