» ISP News » 

BDUK Project Brings Superfast Broadband to 1,908,725 Extra UK Premises

Friday, February 6th, 2015 (12:53 pm) - Score 1,657

The Government’s national Broadband Delivery UK programme, which aims to make fixed line superfast broadband speeds (24Mbps+) available to 90% of the population by 2016 and 95% by 2017, has now made the service available to a total of 1,908,725 additional homes and businesses (premises passed for December 2014).

The figures below typically represent premises that wouldn’t otherwise have been upgraded as part of BT or Virgin Media’s separate commercial roll-outs of related superfast broadband technologies (in reality many might still have benefitted, albeit at a considerably slower pace).

According to the update, today’s figures represent “superfast” (greater than 24Mbps) capable premises in “intervention areas“, as opposed to an overall total of those merely reached by a NGA capable “fibre broadband” network (i.e. premises that have been upgraded, but which only receive sub-24Mbps, are not included).

Overall the BDUK grants to Local Authorities, including budget transfers to devolved administrations (Wales, Scotland etc.), amounted to a cumulative £252,084,918 in cash terms up to the end of December 2014.

The update claims that this equates to 7,572 premises covered per £million of BDUK expenditure so far, although this figure will of course vary as the programme progresses (especially when it pushes into more rural areas where it costs more to reach the same number of people).

bduk broadband coverage december 2014

It’s worth reading these figures alongside the related take-up data (here).

Leave a Comment
80 Responses
  1. NGA for all says:

    If we add the LA and EU match it is £500m in state aid for 2m premises past, including a good chunk for those submarine cables in H&I.
    These are the c£200 per premise milestone payments as opposed to the actuals of c£104 identified by the NAO.
    I assume the difference is just sitting in BT’s accounts? So q4 BT state aid will be a cracker.

    1. Steve Jones says:

      In looking at these figures, it’s important to note that they are grants to the various BDUK local projects, and not payments to BT. A bit of investigation seems to show there are some considerably lags, so it’s rather difficult to work out a how much public funding has been paid across to BT. It looks very much like there is a delay to payments. However, what can be done is to look at BT accounts and how much BDUK grant has been received by reporting period. Note that BT’s finances run April to the end of March, so 2014/15 Q4 represents the end of December 2014. This is what BT accounts report

      2014/15 Q3 94
      2014/15 Q2 £94m
      2014/15 Q1 £73m
      2013/14 Q4 £55m
      2013/14 Q3 £42m
      2013/14 Q2 £15m
      2013/14 Q1 £12m

      That’s a total of £385m, so a bit short of the figure you’ve calculated. There may be some lag in the number, but presumably BDUK pay grants to the local projects a little in advance. Still, there’s a long way to go if there’s a reported £1.8bn of public funds available and, so far, rather then than 25% of that has been paid out so far.

  2. hmmm says:

    super ripoff Britain not superfast Britain when you installed this tripe in my area 20mbps wouldn’t call this superfast more like super shambles run by openreach cowboys

    1. New_Londoner says:

      Good to see that our schools continue to excel in churning out young people with high levels of literacy, a clear understanding in structuring sentences and outstanding knowledge of punctuation! 😉

    2. Gadget says:

      Maybe a student of eecummings

    3. NGA for all says:

      Never mind your broadband, just buy some shares and move house!

    4. hmmm says:

      @NGA why should I move house? and for shares no way you having a giraffe 🙂 lol

    5. NGA for all says:

      @hmmm LOL it is a plan B for those waiting. £300m is Openreach’s total capital expenditure in a quarter which is normally includes 50% capitalied labour. Given the NAO found £142m in excess modelled costs (savings!) up to September, expect that number to double in the next two quarters.
      At any other time, the increase in that number should carry some specific explanation to the City or may do if it is reported at that level in the next quarter.

    6. fastman2 says:

      hhhm you get 17 copper – 2O meg vdsl — so you can buy FTTP service if you choose-

      i know mant communities who would love to be in your situation

    7. No Clue says:

      “hhhm you get 17 copper – 2O meg vdsl — so you can buy FTTP service if you choose-

      i know mant communities who would love to be in your situation

      You know lots of communities that do not want next gen 24+Mb but slower. Another insightful new bit of made up BS.

    8. fastman2 says:

      no clue

      not made up am working with some communities not all of those in that community will get inexcess of 25 meg but that will substantially better than the 1 m/mbps they get today

    9. No Clue says:

      So now they do want faster options? Make up your mind.

  3. NGA for all says:

    Wow – £150m from central Gov + £150m from LA’s in the quarter- that’s one almighty instruction to buy. How do you present that in the accounts when last two quarters were £94m each?

    1. Steve Jones says:

      The article reports funds paid over to the local BDUK projects, not what has bee paid to BT at this stage. To cross-correlate that would require adding up the payments made by each of the BDUK projects.

      Incidentally, so of the BDUK funding goes to internal project costs, paying auditors and so on. It won’t be massive, but I suspect the final figure will not be trivial.

    2. No Clue says:

      “Wow – £150m from central Gov + £150m from LA’s in the quarter- that’s one almighty instruction to buy. How do you present that in the accounts when last two quarters were £94m each?”

      Probably the same way the dimwit fastman alias represents figures when typing on his mobile phone in the message above use an O instead of 0. That way you never get a bunch of zeros on the end of any figure.

  4. GNewton says:

    “in reality many might still have benefitted, albeit at a considerably slower pace”

    I think this says it all. Most of these areas would have been covered by commercial projects anyway at some stage, especially if BT had been forced to publish details of planned commercial rollouts for the next few years, so as to give alternative telecoms a chance to implement fibre in areas untouched by BT.

    1. New_Londoner says:


      “Most of these areas would have been covered by commercial projects anyway at some stage,” – evidence?

      “especially if BT had been forced to publish details of planned commercial rollouts for the next few years, so as to give alternative telecoms a chance to implement fibre in areas untouched by BT” – under what legislation would you compel a private company to disclose commercially sensitive information to competitors without risking lawsuits from its shareholders?

    2. Steve Jones says:

      BT had to respond to the same OMR process as all other operators. At the time of the OMR, there were several bidders, and there was therefore plenty of incentive to declare intentions, or BT could have found themselves in competition with the BDUK winner (which was not a foregone conclusion at the time).

      In any event, what makes you think that BT had firm plans beyond what they declared with the OMR? It’s often the case that investment plans get revised according to circumstances.

    3. GNewton says:

      @Steve Jones:

      I didn’t say that BT would have eventually covered the remaining areas, though even here I doubt they’d given up a whole 3rd of the UK market. As it stands, these taxpayer-funded schemes (going into BTs pocket) have in quite a few cases prevented other telecom companies from setting up their own fibre or other telecom services, because often BDUK projects would hide behing commercial confidentiality clauses, I know of several cases in Essex where this is the case (personal correspondence with Essex CC and BT). This whole BDUK scheme has been a farce!

    4. GNewton says:

      @New_Londoner: Frankly, why do you care? You never objected to taxpayer’s money being wasted here, and you have had a VDSL line for ages. BT is NOT a normal commercial company, it is also a regulated monopoly, and as such can be made subject to various disclosure laws, just as was done with setting its product prices. Or are you afraid of your BT shares? These greedy BT shareholders should have known the risks from the beginning, nobody forces them to buy these shares!

    5. MikeW says:

      “I think this says it all. Most of these areas would have been covered by commercial projects anyway at some stage”

      But the government didn’t want to wait, just in case no-one did provide this coverage. They wanted a commitment to cover within 3 years.

      The whole point of the OMR’s was a put-up-or-shut-up moment; to get companies to make that commitment. No-one did – not even BT.

      “As it stands, these taxpayer-funded schemes have in quite a few cases prevented other telecom companies from setting up their own fibre or other telecom services”

      What makes you think these schemes now deserve priority? These other companies weren’t willing to put their schemes into the OMR at the put-up-or-shut-up moment … which would have prevented the BDUK scheme from ever contemplating the area.

      BDUK became the network funder of last resort .. the one who came in when no one else did.

      Any bleating that it now gets in the way is just hot air.

  5. Patrick Cosgrove says:

    So they’re not telling us about how many premises supplied by an NGA cabinet/line can’t get 24Mb or more, and they’re not telling us what the take-up rates are. They are deliberately hiding the statistics that determine whether this is a successful programme or not. I have requested both these sets of data through Freedom of Information requests and hope to publicise any (or no) answer through this website. See links:



    1. gerarda says:

      Given the fog that surrounds coverage statistics I would like to see a breakdown not just between sub and plus 24Mb but also those that have been “passed” but cannot get the USC.

    2. Steve Jones says:

      The article reports this as premises able to get 24mbps. It would be nice to know how many other premises have access to NGA by speed bands (all estimated of course).

      2mbps USC might well be different again. It would be nice to see a breakdown by technology.

    3. No Clue says:

      “The article reports this as premises able to get 24mbps.”

      No it does not it reports premise which are dubbed superfast which the government thinks automatically equates to faster than 24Mb (probably because they believe all the BS BT have to tell them). When the reality much as idiots like you try to distort it and continually talk to yourself full well know not everyone with FTTC automatically gets more than 24Mb.

    4. Steve Jones says:

      @No Clue

      So you have credible evidence that the numbers are wrong in any substantial way?

    5. No Clue says:

      No i have credible evidence not everyone on FTTC gets over 24Mb though dumb dumb.

    6. GNewton says:

      @Patrick Cosgrove: Well done with your FoI requests. Please keep posted about the outcome!

    7. TheFacts says:

      @NoClue – nobody claims everybody with FTTC gets >24M.

    8. Steve Jones says:

      @No Clue

      Indeed nobody is claiming all properties on FTTC will get 24mbps, which is why the BDUK report is only for premises capable of getting that speed, and not a count of premises passed.

    9. No Clue says:

      Er no these are the figures for BDUK funding, nothing to do with speed unless you can show somewhere which demonstrates premises which are BDUK funded have more than 24Mb.

    10. Gadget says:

      well according to the linked report
      “The numbers of premises reported here are those in intervention areas which have Next Generation Access made available at superfast speeds (above 24 Mbit/s download) as a result of BDUK-supported projects.” on page 4 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401680/Broadband_Performance_Indicator_-_December2014.pdf

    11. FibreFred says:

      Lol no clue , being shown up again?

    12. No Clue says:

      And as stated not everyone on FTTC gets over 24Mb though dumb dumb. The idiot government just believe BTs (including yours) LIES

    13. No Clue says:

      I also like the LIE in that report (no doubt another bit of BT FUD) about the figures not including overspill areas LOL Of course they dont.

    14. TheFacts says:

      How do you know the figures include overspill areas?

    15. FibreFred says:

      Dumb dumb? At your age?

      You must hang around with too many youngsters using language like that

    16. No Clue says:

      “How do you know the figures include overspill areas?”

      Take the figure mentioned above and take the total BDUK rollout figures Spot the difference.

      “Dumb dumb? At your age?”

      1 You do not know my age coul be 1 or 100
      2 From an idiot that calls people troll at every opportunity your opinion on age groups and name calling means less than little.

    17. MikeW says:

      @Steve, @Patrick

      The recent NAO report has an interesting graph in figure 6.

      They say they use the implementation plans to create that graph because they get more regular updates to the figures. However, by doing so, it gives us the figures you desire – well, the planned figures anyway.

      Planned properties passed, without regard to speed: 4.8m
      Planned properties passes with superfast speed: 4.2m

    18. Superfarce says:


      Clearly shows this money does not guarantee 100% get more than 24Mb.

  6. fastman2 says:

    the exam quesion is greater that 24Meg

  7. fastman2 says:

    based on it there being public funding involved you would only tend to deploy cabs where vast majority of those premises passed the exam question !!!!!

    1. No Clue says:

      “based on it there being public funding involved”

      Someone failed an exam in something.

  8. fastman2 says:

    subject to them being value for mone and within the individual county cost cap

  9. PeterM says:

    On the face of it the BDUK scheme has certainly delivered the goods in terms of speeding up the process of getting fibre broadband to the UK fairly quickly. No doubt BT would have enabled lots of the BDUK exchanges eventually but we would have waited a long time.
    Now however we are left with the tax payers who get little or no benefit from the money spent. I am 2km from my fibre cabinet and can only get 3.5Mbps. To persevere to try and improve services using the same fixed network alone is to me rather stupid. We now need much more lateral thinking using fixed wireless, the mobile network in very rural areas and maybe even limited use of satellite. BDUK was right to use BT for the first stage of the project but they should have started working in the problem areas that couldn’t benefit from FTTC at the same time.

  10. No need for slow FOI requests just look at

    Figures for speed/spread below superfast definition.

    1. Steve Jones says:

      That’s a ThinkBroadband estimate, and it would be nice to see the official version. It’s not accurate for my line, which is 600m to the cabinet (which I’ve measured) and was reported at 650m according to the engineer. I get a 59mbps DS sync speed whilst TB estimates 35mbps. (On the other hands I get 11mbps upstream vs an estimate of 14mbps. My cabinet has been enabled for about 18 months and sync speed has not deteriorated in the last 9 months.

      One advantage that OR ought to have is real data to correlate actual sync speeds against known line lengths. It would be nice to see those.

      (nb. predicated on near-optimal home wiring; if that’s not the case, then all estimates are highly unreliable).

    2. gerarda says:

      Unless I am misreading the text the figures show the speeds of those subscribing to an FTTC service and therefore those who have not subscribed because they get no significant uplift in speed. They therefore understate the percentage of sub superfast speed lines.

    3. gerarda says:

      missed a “excludes” between “therefore” and “those”

    4. AndyH says:

      @ Steve Jones – Openreach use measured noise levels to estimate speeds. It would be inaccurate to use X distance as X speed because there are too many variables which could affect the speed. The methodology for their speed estimates is published and available (to those with portal access) on their site.

    5. Steve Jones says:


      Yes, you have misread it. The figures are for premises where Superfast has been made available, not for those who have subscribed. It’s therefore irrelevant how many have not subscribed for the reason you state. The >24mbps figure is, I would think, based on the use of OpenReach estimates based on line characteristics, take-up rate and so on. I would assume these estimates are corrected based on actual results.


      I’ve no doubt there are other factors (although I assume line length is the most important). However, that’s even more reason to have official estimates available if those methods are more accurate.

    6. gerarda says:


      I was referring to the thinkbroadband article

    7. No Clue says:

      “That’s a ThinkBroadband estimate, and it would be nice to see the official version.”

      Its much nearer the truth though that not all get over 24Mb though isnt it dumb dumb.

    8. Steve Jones says:

      @No Clue

      I hope you realise that resorting to playground insults does your argument no good at all and it’s getting tiresome. Your chain of comments reveals that you misunderstood (or more likely, didn’t even bother to read the full text of either this article or the news release it links too). You continue to imply I’m claiming that all FTTC lines can get >24mbps, and it only takes a brief reading of what I wrote to see that’s manifestly wrong.

      As to the accusation of being dumb, then I do, at least have some evidence to the contrary. If you care to contact Imperial College, then they will, I’m sure, confirm that I graduated in physics in 1976. Unlike you, I post using my real name.

    9. No Clue says:

      There is no argument TBB estimate (as you put it) not every user gets over 24Mb and so do i. Someone must be wrong and its rarely the majority, especially when the minority is you.

  11. fastman2 says:

    peter — the cab you are commnected to was probably done as the vast majority of those premises connected to it would have been in excess of 24 M/bps (and answered the BDUK exam Question)– the BDUK programme is around Coverage and speeds for X % of the intervention area convered

    1. PeterM says:

      fastman – Yes, 200 of the 288 premises connected get above 24Mbps. This is a significant improvement because most of these premises can only get up to about 5Mbps on ADSL2 because the West Chiltington exchange is 2 miles away in Storrington.
      But my gripe is that having started a job they have not finished. I am 2km from my cabinet but there is another cabinet just 500m away. For the cost of a few telegraph poles it would be easy to intercept our cable that feeds about 30 properties and connect us up to the other cabinet. WSCC BDUK have done this with exchange only lines so why not for lines with other speed problems.
      We also have much longer lines on this exchange that are still on dial up. Nothing has been done for these customers. In fact our local fixed wireless provider has been frozen out by BDUK. He could have easily have had these customers connected by now if they had asked. Kent CC seem to have done a good job financing VFast to fill in their gaps but here in West Sussex we are left with little or nothing.

    2. Steve Jones says:

      Your position may yet get rectified, but I fear that it was always going to be left to the end of the current phase, or maybe rolled into a later phase due to the extra complexity, cost and uncertainty as to how much finance is left. Also, resources are going to be tied up with the “low hanging fruit”.

      Are the local politicians not able to make representations? After all, BDUK is a public project and, at the very least, they ought to be seeking answers even if what comes back is not definitive at this stage.

    3. dragoneast says:

      Um, it’s never quite so simple though, is it? I’ve live in an area where ADSL was around 2 Meg download. Eventually we got VDSL through speeds are still variable. There is a co-operative Fixed Wireless provider, I know because I got service. Out of around 1,500 dwellings affected, how many went the Fixed Wireless route? One, me. What about the rest? Of those that were concerned they didn’t see why they should pay the installation costs when BT was “cheaper”. And that’s the rub – we want the cheapest not the best solution. And I don’t know of ANY fixed wireless provider that can provide coverage to everybody in their “coverage” area. Topographical and physical obstructions get in the way. And they are limited the same as everybody else by the available backhaul. Things are always wonderful, in theory. If only . . .

  12. PeterM says:

    I have already been told that there is no chance of getting any improvement in the first phase. The reason – “any improvements are illegal under EU rules because they would be considered to be overbuilding”. Apparently our local fixed wireless provider, who can’t supply us, is the excuse for doing nothing. We are however eligible for funding in the next phase but nothing is guaranteed.
    Our local councilor is aware of the problems because he also has poor broadband speeds.

    1. No Clue says:

      Wirless didnt stop BT overbuilding in Essex, weird its affected you though especially as a certain individual doesnt think wireless equates to Next gen.

  13. dragoneast says:

    Customers can get caught in a conundrum. A fixed wireless provider can argue that given enough money and time they could bring Fixed Wireless to everybody in their commercial “operating” area. BT too given enough time and money can bring superfast to everybody with a phone line (and perhaps in the future even those without). Like everything in life there has to be common sense. The issue is who can do it in a reasonable timescale within the resources available to them. Not who can do it, if only . . . But with some people, you just can’t argue . . .

    1. No Clue says:

      No idea about PeterM area but in Essex nearly all of it had 24Mb+ way before BT got their hand outs.

    2. PeterM says:

      We are stuck in the dark ages down here in West Sussex. As long as you can get 2Mbps with FTTC that’s it. Job done!

    3. No Clue says:

      FTTC @ 2Mb wow i knew it was a waste of time and money but not to that extent.

  14. dragoneast says:

    As always it depends what you mean by “nearly all”. Not in Essex as elsewhere in many rural areas, and the “fact” that any urban area has Virgin services or an enabled exchange, doesn’t mean that “nearly” everyone, especially those in estates or areas with long lines and EO lines can get superfast. Much of the estate infrastructure put in by developers in the 1960s and 1970s and even later, across East Anglia, is in poor condition. On the same basis you could argue that now “nearly all” the population of the country has access to superfast. Scant consolation to the concentrations that don’t. That’s the trouble with marketing hype masquerading as stats.

    1. No Clue says:

      “As always it depends what you mean by “nearly all”.”

      Ill clarify that, every area BT deployed in 24Mb wifi was there first…

    2. TheFacts says:

      Was there concern that a company with a net worth of £4559 on 31 March 2013 should be responsible for NGA for much of Essex?

    3. No Clue says:

      As you would say ask the relevant bodies. Clearly there wasnt a concern though as the council gave them money, long before BT came along.

    4. Gadget says:

      A little caution is require when viewing the map which does indeed have most of the county covered by one shade of green or another.

      To quote from the site (http://www.fibrewifi.com/coverage) “When viewing our coverage through Google Earth or Maps the likelyhood of service increases in the dark green areas. Should you be in a much lighter green area then the best way to be sure is to register your interest on this website and an engineer will check for you.”

    5. No Clue says:

      It also states
      “We take this cautious approach in order to take into account local anomalies such as significant tree coverage which can affect reception. So although the map may show your location outside the predicted coverage area you may still be able to receive service.”

      Or in other words unlike BT they under estimate coverage/play on the safe side rather than making up nonsense speeds and promising things they can not deliver.

    6. No Clue says:

      And then goes on to state…
      “The predicted coverage is based upon customer reception radio’s being placed at just four metres above ground level. In reality the radio’s will be placed at eight metres and above.”

      Which again indicates they are being conservative, its also all clearly mentioned under the Suffolk service which uses a mesh network and not the Essex service…
      and click the “network mesh overlay” link on the left.

      The people less likely to get service is shown in BLUE on their maps, green and light green you are likely to get the service

      This is also indicated by the EPPING FORREST location and the wuote here….


      and the map here….


      Unless you are going to try to claim as most that area is light green basically nobody can get it are you????????????????????

      SO its BLUE that wont get service, grenn gets the service but the darker the green the better the reception, glad thats cleared up for you.

      Any other only read one thing contribution you wish to make?

    7. Gadget says:

      I never did suggest no-one could get service, I did suggest caution if anyone wants to assume EVERYONE can get service, so perhaps your comment regarding reading might work both ways.

      But also lets not forget that the current published position for Superfast Essex is that they do not consider wireless as part of their current Superfast coverage. whatever their previous stance may have been. See FAQ13 on their website http://www.superfastessex.org/en-gb/faqs.aspx. So they do not consider it overbuilding, and since we are talking about overbuilding in the current contract and rollout that is why they designated the postcodes white after the relevant OMR, to be including in the BDUK build.

      “Fibre broadband is currently the only technology we expect to use under the Superfast Essex programme in order to reach download speeds of 24Mbps or more.

      Wireless technology is also capable of providing such speeds. However, the wireless solutions currently being offered in some areas of Essex do not comply with the state aid funding requirements we need to meet in order to claim the Government grant that supports the programme.

      However, as part of the current discussion around the Superfast Extension Programme, we are reviewing the options for including state-aid compliant wireless solutions in our future plans.”

    8. No Clue says:

      Nonsense again and been over with you previously…

      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.

    9. Gadget says:

      it appears you missed the last part of the faqs when reading them
      “Last Updated: 2nd April 2014 “, so clearly later than your quoted 2013 document

    10. No Clue says:

      Irrelevant when that faq was updated in fact it having a later date helps my argument that The wifi project was funded BEFORE BT.
      The maldon document also indicates it is part of government funding…..

      (ii) Telecommunications (Broadband)
      Lead Agency
      § British Telecom
      § Essex County Council
      § Buzcom

      Evidence Base
      § EU Digital Agenda
      § Britain’s Superfast Broadband Future (DCMS, 2010)
      § 21 st Century Digital Essex: A Strategy for World Class Broadband for Essex (ECC,2011)

      Strategic Issues
      12.2 Good communication networks such as broadband have a vital function both economically and socially. Without these networks Maldon District would be at risk of being uncompetitive and socially excluded.
      12.3 The EU Digital Agenda aims to ‘deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a digital single market based on fast and ultra fast internet and interoperable applications.’ Member states are therefore committed to provide a common EU broadband communications network by 2020.
      12.4 The National Broadband Strategy 2010 sets out the UK Government plan for a Universal Service Commitment to ensure virtually every household will be able to access a broadband line capable of delivering at least 2 Mbps (mega bytes per second) by 2015. The Government’s ambition is to provide a minimum of 2Mbps broadband to all homes and superfast broadband to 90% of people by 2015. Superfast broadband has been clarified to mean at least 24Mbps. By 2020, fast broadband coverage at 30Mbps should be available to all EU citizens, with at least half European households subscribing to broadband access at 100Mbps.
      12.5 ‘21 st Century Digital Essex: A Strategy for World Class Broadband for Essex’ prepared by Essex County Council provides a broadband speed map for the County. This map indicates that the higher broadband speeds are centred on the larger settlements and that large parts of rural Maldon suffer from low broadband speeds. As a result of work by Essex County Council to promote rural connectivity to broadband services, Buzcom were commissioned to provide Super Fast and Ultra Fast broadband connections to rural areas in Maldon, which over 700 residents in the District benefit from.

      I trust you can read what is listed under EVIDENCE, you know the opposite to what you do.

    11. No Clue says:

      Oh and if that is not enough for you fibrewifi is part of the BDUK no matter what the superfast essex site and some dozy councillor thinks…….
      quote”……..The Government has committed £150 million for the SuperConnected Cities programme, which is managed by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK), a unit within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Find out more about how Government is transforming broadband across the UK.”


      OH LOOK….


    12. No Clue says:

      Further more if the later the date the more important/accurate then….

  15. GNewton says:


    “Was there concern that a company with a net worth of £4559 on 31 March 2013 should be responsible for NGA for much of Essex?”

    How is your progress as regards your research to the questions raised last summer? And have you learnt now how to use Google? Have you started a local campaign to get a better broadband in your own area? How big do you want a company to be to become active in Essex?

    1. No Clue says:

      Amazing isnt it, he can manage to visit companycheck.co.uk but does not have the sense to realise how stupid his question is seeing as the council gave them money for a roll out. A rollout it should be added which was deployed across Essex far quicker than it took BT and their solution which still is not done there.

      Then again the witless BT bottom lickers do not seem to have much sense so in his world this type of creative searching and ignoring everything else is entirely normal.

Comments are closed.

Comments RSS Feed

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

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

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

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

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

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