» ISP News » 

Revealed – The Dec 2014 BDUK and BT “Fibre Broadband” Uptake Figures

Saturday, March 7th, 2015 (7:55 am) - Score 2,289

The central Government’s national Broadband Delivery UK project, which is working with BT to deploy superfast “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) connectivity services across the United Kingdom, has just published the programmes latest take-up figures for December 2014. Adoption is rising rapidly and several more projects have now broken the 20% threshold.

ISPreview.co.uk published the first full summary of uptake – by each local authority area – just before Christmas, which reflected data to September 2014. The latest update includes data gathered to the end of 2014 and follows shortly after the Government revealed that its BDUK scheme had helped to put the service within reach of an extra 2 million premises (here); total UK coverage of approximately 80%.

As before the following figures only reflect uptake in areas that have been upgraded through the BDUK and related state aid schemes, thus they do not include uptake achieved through purely commercial deployments, such as BT’s separate £2.5bn roll-out of FTTC/P to the first 66% of the United Kingdom or Virgin Media’s cable network.

Understanding uptake is important because most of the related BDUK contracts have a claw-back mechanism, which means that take-up beyond 20% (may vary between contracts) could trigger a return of some of the original investment and this can then be used to further extend coverage or improve service speeds.

One particularly optimistic estimate predicted that if 50% take-up were ever achieved, across the whole of the UK, then that could be worth as much as £270m. So it’s good to note that several projects have now passed the 20% mark or are very close to doing so, including Hampshire (19.5%), Surrey (23.6%), North Yorkshire (20.9%) and of course the more mature deployment in Rutland (36.7%).

BDUK Phase 1 Uptake Data (Dec 2014) – %

Berkshire Councils – 7.6
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire – 11.2
Cambridgeshire, Peterborough – 16.8
Central Beds, Bedford Borough, Milton Keynes – 11.6
Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester, Warrington, Halton – 15.9*
Devon & Somerset (including, Plymouth, Torbay, North Somerset, Bath & NE Somerset) – 12.5
Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire – 12.8
Cumbria – 14.5*
Derbyshire – 6.7
Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole – 10.2
Durham, Gateshead, Tees Valley and Sunderland – 8
East Riding of Yorkshire – 4.6
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove – 10.7
Essex, Southend-On-Sea, Thurrock – 8.8
Greater Manchester – 4.4
Hampshire – 19.5
Herefordshire and Gloucestershire – 17.1*
Isle of Wight – 8.9*
Kent and Medway – 11.2
Lancashire, Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen – 12.3
Leicestershire – 6.5
Lincolnshire – 10.2
Merseyside – 6
Newcastle upon Tyne – 3.3
Norfolk – 12.7
North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire – 7.8
North Yorkshire – 20.9*
Northamptonshire – 16.3
Northumberland – 11.6
Nottinghamshire – 5.4
Oxfordshire – 11.8
Rutland – 36.7
Shropshire – 12.1
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent – 7.6
Suffolk – 15.8
Surrey – 23.6*
West Sussex – 11.8
West Yorkshire – 7.9
Wiltshire, South Gloucestershire – 14.9
Worcestershire – 9.3

Devolved Administrations

Highlands and Islands – 10.3 (up from 6.7% in Sept 2014)
Northern Ireland – 0.4** (unchanged – still only using Sept 2014 data)
Rest of Scotland – 8.7 (up from 5.81%)
Wales – 12.7* (up from 10.9%)

NOTE: Figures marked * have been provided directly by the Local Authority Project or are non-framework projects.

It is however important to point out that uptake is a dynamically scaled measurement, which means that at certain stages of the scheme it may go up or down depending upon the pace of deployment and other factors (though over time the direction should only go upwards).

Likewise several of the projects report far lower figures than others, which is partly due to the fact that some BDUK deployments were only started recently and others, such as Rutland (a strong figure of 36.7%, which is up from 32.7% in Sept 2014), have been going for quite some time and are now virtually complete (BDUK Phase 1).

Some of the other issues that can impact uptake include the higher prices being charged for FTTC/P services (less attractive), consumers being locked into long contracts with their existing ISP (can’t upgrade yet), a lack of general awareness or interest in the new connectivity (i.e. if you have a decent ADSL2+ speed then you might be less inclined to upgrade) and concerns over the ease of migration.

Broadly speaking the results appear to be positive and at the very least are running well ahead of the Government’s expectations, not that this would be too difficult with some early projections expecting considerably less (here).

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
Mark Jackson
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
64 Responses
  1. Avatar Sledgehammer says:

    “Adoption is rising rapidly and several more projects have now broken the 20% threshold.”

    20% of what a 100/1000/10000/100000. percentages tell you nothing, so this whole news item is useless.

    1. Mark Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      The news item above already links to most of what you require:


      Some of us fought very hard to get this data published in the first place and that’s because people widely desired to see it. Hardly useless news.

    2. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      I’ve no idea what your point is. A percentage take-up of what’s been rolled out so far is very meaningful. It’s not as if we don’t have other reports on premises passed so far. Of course it would be nice to see a more thorough and consistent analysis produced on a regular basis, but the overall message that take-up is ahead of what looked like very conservative initial estimates is very important.

      Another point that people might want to pick up on is that BT’s commercial assessment was probably also conservative and that, based on this, many of the areas being enabled through BDUK would not have required gap funding. As such, BT were able to defray quite a lot of the risk to BDUK, even if they have to pay funds back through “claw-back”. However, politicians wanted to accelerate the roll-out rate, and if I was running a commercial company then I’d certainly want to take advantage of it.

      So there’s no doubt BDUK has played to BT’s advantage, but that’s maybe because there was never a truthful dialogue from the state. Given the limited funds available, it was pretty well certain no other company would have been able to provide this level of coverage or at this rate, even if it doesn’t meet the “full fibre” demands of the vociferous. Politics is the art of the possible.

    3. Avatar gerarda says:

      @steve jones

      I do wonder what sort of lobbying BT did to get the Govt to scrap the 2012 USC, which BT would not have been able to deliver, and replace it with a national superfast rollout.

    4. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Are you aware of such lobbying?

      Also it was a commitment not an obligation, huge difference.

    5. Avatar FibreFred says:

      … and a government commitment at that, there’s plenty of government examples where they’ve committed to do something and failed, an example every month no doubt!

    6. Avatar Steve Jones says:


      Who knows what talks go on. It would be astonishing if every major ISP in the country didn’t make representations to the government. It’s up to elected politicians to balance interests and decide on strategy and policy and what is actually possible.

      Also, in an industry like telecommunications, where the state position is highly interventionist on matters of regulation, any company is going to seek to protect its interests. That goes for BT, VM, LLU operators, mobile companies and so on.

      Of course there are those that think that it could all have been done by some sort of massed group of altnets; community projects, alternative infrastructure networks, wireless operators and the like. Good luck with managing such an exercise. In general, governments want predictable, reliable, low-risk projects when it comes to infrastructure.

    7. Avatar gerarda says:

      @steve jones

      and it probably did not help that the Govt have been consistently misinformed over the extent of ADSL availability so probably thought it was just a little mopping up exercise not one that might now cost a disproportionate amount to solve.

    8. Avatar Steve Jones says:


      I’m not sure what you are talking about, unless it’s the 2mbps USC part of BDUK. As far as I’m aware, it was always stated that for the 2mbps USC satellite was always going to play a part for the most difficult (read expensive) to reach properties. In many ways that 2mbps USC in BDUK is the most difficult part of the whole programme. I suspect we’ll hear more about this in the future.

      For instance, there’s an interview here


    9. Avatar gerarda says:

      @steve jones

      The government was not made aware of the number of long exchange lines not capable of getting adsl and policy was made on the assumption there were none (confirmed by a meeting between our MPs and County Councillors and DCMS) so the extent of the sub 2mb was, and still is (Ofcom deny the existence of such lines), underplayed, and therefore under provided for in the subsidy allocation.

    10. Avatar fastman2 says:

      for the avoidance of doubt a line has to be >24 m/bps to be included in the BDUK figures so the take up is X% of the acessable line at >24 m/bps having purchased a service not having access to a service (take up meeans you have ordered a service) greater than 20% means clawback means that take-up beyond 20% (may vary between contracts) could trigger a return of some of the original investment and this can then be used to further extend coverage or improve service speeds

    11. Avatar TheFacts says:

      What do Ofcom deny exists, even with all the consulants employed by the counties?

    12. Avatar Steve Jones says:


      I’m aware of the fact that the SF coverage figures are for > 24mbps. However, the subject has been subtly moved to the 2mbps USC which, in its way, is far more challenging to do with the money available than the SF targets. There is the satellite option, but it’s seen as a problem as it suffers from two issues. One being capacity (which might be just a matter of how much capacity is rented) and a second, which is latency. The latter is not resolvable with mere money.

      At the moment it is far from clear what percentage will be left with satellite with the 2mbps USC option. As that population includes a high proportion of farmers who are being compelled to use online government services, then you can guarantee that it will be very visible as they are a vociferous groups with good political connections. Witness the recent PAC meeting on rural broadband where the 2mbps USC was emaphasised.

    13. Avatar GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: “What do Ofcom deny exists, even with all the consulants employed by the counties?”

      Your question doesn’t make sense, please use correct English.

      BTW.: How are your Google lessons going?

    14. Avatar gerarda says:

      @The facts

      Ofcom deny the existence of lines connected to an ADSL enabled exchange that are too far away to get a service


    15. Avatar TheFacts says:

      Some further correspondence is required.

    16. Avatar GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: “Some further correspondence is required.”

      Some further Google research is required.

      How are yoiur Google lessons going?

    17. Avatar fastman2 says:

      you do the sub 2 last becase as technology moves forward that sub 2 get smaller — there are a number of village now which are >24 that were orginally identified as sub 2 becase the techology has moved on and actually what is the groudn is much clearer

    18. Avatar DTMark says:

      The BDUK project had dual objectives of superfast for 90% and 2Mbps for all.

      It is possible to treat them as separate projects and this certainly suits BT, but the increased cost of doing so then escalates out of control; it is conceivable that even one street might need two networks – one side of the street with VDSL and the other needing a brand new network from scratch.

      It can only be done as ‘one’ overarching project with both objectives co-ordinated. So in the above example (extend to anywhere, another example would be a village where the costs now become astronomical thanks to the farce of having to deploy two networks in one of the areas of lowest population density) the correct answer is to only build one network and not two.

  2. Avatar Patrick Cosgrove says:

    You’re right Mark, some of us did fight very hard for it. I’d still like to see the percentages differentiated according to length of time upgraded, which BT can provide because an FOI request showed that Wales has it in that form, and even better would be the figures set alongside percentages of premises ‘passed’ according to different ranges of speeds, including 24 Mb+, and less than 2 Mb, which might explain further why some areas are high or low. So far BDUK refuses to release this sort of information. One must keep trying.

    P.S And why is Cornwall permitted to withhold all data (that one’s with the Information Commissioner)?

    1. Avatar AndyH says:

      BT are not subject to FOI requests as they are not a public organisation.

      The public organisation requests can only be fulfilled on information they hold. If they do not hold the information or it’s already available in other means, then they are not obligated to provide the information.

      The ICO has no powers to force data to be released.

    2. Avatar Patrick Cosgrove says:

      Andy, I didn’t ask BT, I variously asked the delivery bodies and BDUK. Initially some local delivery bodies provided information and some didn’t, then BDUK provided it across the country up to the end of September2014, except for Cornwall which is not BDUK funded. Cornwall has consistently refused to provide anything. Kind regards, Patrick

  3. Avatar Sledgehammer says:


    In this link hard figures are quoted not percentages, is it too much to ask BDUK not to use percentages but quote the number of people that have taken FTTC? Even if it was a grand total for the whole of the U.K.

  4. Avatar NGA for all says:

    The progess on take up is good to see.
    I was hoping the USC would not be a contracted item but push on with fibre based services.
    The clawback, and the clawback of the excess modelled costs, and re-use of USC and BT’s resource restrictions suggests any bigger ambition needs to be accommodated into 2018-2020.
    Would a longer delivery period permit the ambition for FTTP to be re-stated?

    1. Avatar gerarda says:

      “I was hoping the USC would not be a contracted item ”

      You obviously do not live in a not-spot

    2. Avatar nga for all says:

      @gerarda On the basis that it could not be enforced on an individual basis. Statistically and technically Ofcom could the Usc is or can already be met.

    3. Avatar gerarda says:

      Ofcom will say anything to suit their agenda. See other posts in this section

  5. Avatar Al says:

    And uptake might increase further as BDUK rolls out to the more rural areas who generally suffer slower speeds. If you have a decent 12Mbps ASDL2/2+ connection you might not feel the need to upgrade to FTTC/P. However if you are on a slow ASDL2/2+ or still stuck on ASDL1/Max then you might be inclined to spend the extra and in the case of ASDL1 as mmost of these are BT only exchanges the additional cost might be neglible

    1. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      Indeed. It’s long been suggested that take-up in locations with poor ADSL-based services will by much higher than urban areas and that this has not been properly taken into consideration on BDUK and commercial roll-out priorities. Many people would be prepared to pay a few more pound per month as the move from (say) 1mbps to just 10mbps transforms usability in a way that going from 10mbps to 40mbps is not.

  6. Avatar gerarda says:


    This was the further correspondence

    My reply

    ” There are two statements in your response:
    1.“We consider a line to be able to provide broadband services if it is connected to broadband equipment at the exchange “

    Can you please explain how Ofcom have arrived at that conclusion and what evidence you have to support it.

    2 “There is no minimum speed below which a service would be deemed not to exist. “

    This conflicts with the definition contained in your report:
    A data service or connection generally defined as being ‘always on’ and
    providing a bandwidth greater than narrowband connections.

    So please provide as requested details of the estimated number of premises unable to get a fixed broadband service that meets this definition.”

    Their response

    “The definition of broadband in the Infrastructure Report is a commonly used definition, on services (not dial-up) which provide a bandwidth greater than narrowband services.

    In order to deliver these services, broadband lines must be connected to broadband equipment at the exchange. As we explained in our previous response 1-27679619, we understand that virtually all exchanges in the UK have broadband equipment installed and estimate that nearly all lines in the UK are within the distance to provide speeds greater than narrowband speeds.

    We therefore believe that broadband is available to almost all premises in the UK. However, we do not hold the granularity of information that would be necessary to estimate the number of premises that cannot receive broadband. ”

    My response to that

    “Thank you for your reply.
    It does confirm what many of us in exchange enabled not spots have suspected for many years. That is, that Government policy has been based on fabrication, negligence or laziness. I do hope your new boss changes Ofcom’s culture to one of honesty and accuracy.”

    1. Avatar MikeW says:

      It doesn’t look like you have a very accurate response from Ofcom there. I don’t mean that as a “Well, duh” answer, but by pointing at historical reports they have done…

      In the 2012 Infrastructure report, Ofcom estimated that 1.3% of properties could not get fixed-line broadband; Para 3.9.

      In that document, they took their figures from the postcodes with no broadband and no SFBB. They then weighted by the likelihood that properties would choose to have broadband, and factored in the possibilities that their working data was incomplete.

      Further, they made the list of postcodes available, to allow others to apply their own calculations to.

      Since then, we see that Ofcom makes a reference in the 2014 Euro Broadband Scorecard. Ironically, when referring to Point Topic’s assertion of 100% bb coverage, they point back to their 2012 data to show that hotspots are actually likely to exist. It seems they agree with you; entirely contrary to the FoI answer.

      It would appear unlikely that anywhere that was a hotspot in 2012 will have found themselves magically covered by exchange-based DSL since then – so the 2012 list is likely a good start to recalculation in 2015. Of course, some will have subsequently been given some amount of coverage courtesy of NGA technology, so some new work is needed to take account of that.

      All in all, the FoI response seems, shall we say, lacking in quality. I guess the guys responding to FoI requests work at a lower pay grade than the report authors.

    2. Avatar gerarda says:


      Unfortunately politicians and their advisors never read the detail so close to 100% equates to 100% (Ofcoms graphs tend to round up 98.7% to 100%) when if the 1.3% is correct it means its unavailable to 750,000 of the population.

      I also have considerable doubts about Ofcom estimates. Remember the 2012 report also claimed 95% 30Mpbs coverage in Northern Ireland despite apparently(para 3.12)recognising distance from the cabinet affects the speed. In 2012 they had no data in 170,000 postcodes and insufficient data in a similar number. If you took no data as being evidence of a notspot then the 1.3% becomes about 6%

      As the response to my FOIs show Ofocm have never attempted to validate or test their assumptions so no one really knows what the true position is.

  7. Avatar PeterM says:

    Our 11.8% uptake in West Sussex since last summer, when the local BDUK started, is encouraging but I think it could have been much better.
    There has been hardly any publicity to introduce the scheme as exchanges are upgraded and I am quite sure that many customers 1, Don’t realize that their exchange has been upgraded and 2, that they have to contact their ISP to benefit from the upgrade.
    Internet Service providers do a very good job attracting new business but they don’t seem to keep their existing customers so well informed.
    A simple sticker on each new fibre cabinet informing customers how to benefit from the new service would also be very useful.

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Its really for the ISP’s to advertise their products, they should mailshot each area as the service becomes available.

      Openreach don’t advertise that way as their customers are the ISP’s, not me and you

    2. Avatar Steve Jones says:

      It would surely be quite simple for each ISP to email its customers in the relevant area as each postcode is enabled for FTTC. I would hope that OpenReach notify all the ISPs with the appropriate location data as it happens. It would be up to the ISP whether to do it or not (there are some suspicions that LLU operators are not too keen on pro-actively getting their customers to upgrade as it’s actually less profitable than when they remain wholly on their network; acquiring new customer is, of course, a different thing).

      In the case of BT Consumer, a sales agent phoned me some time after the cabinet was enabled (albeit that was part of the commercial roll-out). The TPF doesn’t apply in the case of existing customers.

      However, it also seems to me that it would be very easy for the local BDUK project to mail-shot each postcode after it is enabled. It’s relatively cheap (as it doesn’t require addressing) and it could be staggered over all the postcodes on s ma cabinet to avoid too much of a rush. Of course some ISPs might not be too happy as they may not be fully prepared with things like enhanced backhaul that may be required.

    3. Avatar PeterM says:

      One thing that has always surprised me is how little information is available in the local press when an exchange is upgraded.
      They just don’t seem to be interested in broadband, at least that is the situation here in West Sussex.
      When I was on holiday in Cornwall I noticed that all the new fibre cabinets had “Superfast” stickers on them.

    4. Avatar fastman2 says:

      steve openreach supports circa 500+ sevice providers all serivce provider are advised at same time of a cab being enabled — what they choose to do about that it then a commercial decision for the service provdier -FYI there are around 60-80 service providers offering FTTC i understand

    5. Avatar PeterM says:

      If the ISP’s wont pass on the info it has to be the County Council.
      A simple press release would seem to be the answer with the info flowing to local and parish councils as well as the local press and free papers.
      Also stickers on the new cabinets.

    6. Avatar Steve Jones says:


      The issue is with the big LLU operators who may not be too keen on seeing their existing customers migrate to FTTC as there’s a credible view that this is less profitable for them (they’ve got a lot of sunk cost in MSANs to recover, and FTTC means paying more money to OR, not to mention extra backhaul bandwidth). However, BDUK’s interest and, to be fair, OpenReach’s, will be to see a migration to FTTC. Hence some possible consideration of a localised BDUK awareness exercise as areas are enabled.

    7. Avatar X66yh says:

      As I have consistently said on here….
      Outside the excited on broadband forums the reality is that most people in the general population are not interested in broadband.

      For example when Gigaclear targets a village with their full FTTP broadband, they have to work really hard with lots of local advertising, banners in shops and on lamp posts, open days, mail shots, village meetings, local champions etc just to get to 30% signed up trigger level when they will commit to install. This is very targeted advertising.

      Now on BB forums likes this and TBB members would jump at an opportunity to get FTTP: but such forums are not representative of the population in general.
      In such villages even where there is just 2Mbps BT service typically the other 70% of the population simply do not care and are not interested in whatever gigaclear are offering.

    8. Avatar PeterM says:

      Yes, I totally agree but in our village of West Chiltington our ADSL speeds are terrible because the exchange is about 3 miles away. I still get people telling me how bad their broadband speeds are despite the fact that they can now get FTTC.
      The message has not penetrated through to most of the residents, they simply don’t understand what is available and how to get it.

  8. Avatar fastman2 says:

    counties shoudl be doing demand stimulation as well

    1. Avatar Chris Conder says:

      No point in doing demand stimulation Fastman until they have a product that can work for everyone. The people who will respond first are the notspots. And FTTC can’t help them at all.

    2. Avatar PeterM says:

      @Chris Conder
      The only way that we are going to get an improvement to our service in notspots is by stimulating demand.
      The only reason that we have notspots is because of lack of investment.
      By stimulating demand our local councils will invest, but if we continue as we are they will simply loose interest.

    3. Avatar TheFacts says:

      ‘Product for everyone’. Like mains gas and a Waitrose who advertise successfully. FTTC is helping thousands quickly. Usual nonsense from Chris.

    4. Avatar gerarda says:

      Spending council taxpayers money on demand stimulation is a double blow for the substantial minority who have been failed by this project.

    5. Avatar Steve Jones says:


      No it isn’t. Firstly it would (through claw-back) return money that could be reinvested for the more difficult areas. A targeted mail-drop by post code costs very little (unlike addressed mail). Secondly, a high level of take-up would also help make the case for covering the more difficult areas.

    6. Avatar gerarda says:

      @steve jones

      If they had not spent money investing in areas where only a minority of the people want an upgrade they would have had the money to do the worst areas.

  9. Avatar PeterM says:

    As one of the substantial minority who have so far been virtually failed by this project – I only get 3.5Mbps on FTTC.
    I can see why you say that it is a double blow.
    However, it is only demand stimulation that will eventually give us an improved service. Simply because the Councils will only allocate additional cash if demand is high. Anything over a 20% take up is probably enough to get continued investment.

    1. Avatar gerarda says:

      but by doing the semi urban areas in priority to the notspots they have engendered a low take up rate. If they had done our village they would have got a 60-80% take up rate,

    2. Avatar TheFacts says:

      @G – What’s the characteristics of your village that means it will not be done by BDUK?

    3. Avatar fastman2 says:

      so Gerada whats your village and why is not done — is the exchange enabled ?

    4. Avatar TheFacts says:

      An exchange being called ‘enabled’ just means one or more cabinets has FTTC. The fibre is unlikely to go into a village exchange, but back into the network.

    5. Avatar PeterM says:

      They have done the semi urban areas first because they give the most brownie points.
      My gripe is that they are not getting on with upgrading the more difficult rural areas fast enough.
      To get to 100% coverage or even 95% coverage there has to be momentum, by spliting the project up into phases that momentum could be lost.

    6. Avatar X66yh says:

      My hamlet’s two cabs are also not being done though the exchange is being enabled.
      Ironically the fibre runs past one cabinet en route to other villages whose cab’s are being done while the cab that it runs past is not being done under BDUK.

      As to why not ? – who knows….
      Possible reasons are
      1. Poor cabs/population distribution areas so a higher than average % of the cab service area population live further away from it so the % able to get high speeds is lower than average for the UK (cab serves approx 180 residences. So its a bad speed uplift/number of residences/£ spent equation.
      2. A reasonably upmarket area so maybe they hope desperate residents will be stupid enough to pay for the upgrade themselves so BT/BDUK don’t have to.

      We await to see whether it will be done in the post 2015 BDUK extension program (SEP) whose details are yet to be announced.

    7. Avatar TheFacts says:

      @Peter – phasing projects is standard.

    8. Avatar PeterM says:

      @The Facts
      Phasing projects is just an excuse to only half finish a job.

    9. Avatar PeterM says:

      I guess its reason one.
      Yet another exapmle of a job half finished.
      Just leave it to the next phase!
      The village of Nutbourne on the West Chiltington exchange has also been forgoten, they just have up to 2Mbps. Some of the long lines on my cabinet 4 on the West Chiltington exchange are still on dial up!

    10. Avatar TheFacts says:

      @Peter – might be a problem with Crossrail then…

    11. Avatar PeterM says:

      Nah. Just politicians prating about.

    12. Avatar fastman2 says:

      XY66yh you could always have a conversation direct with openreach around gp funding for your village – see openreach FAQ’s

  10. Avatar Sledgehammer says:

    Total up the 44 percentage rises and you get a average increase of 11.58%.
    Total up the actual numbers from the previous data supplied 2,157,292 multiplied by 11.58% gives a new total of 2,407.106. Giving a net gain of 249,814 new FTTC users.

  11. Avatar JamieR says:

    Why is uptake in Northern Ireland so low when it was one of the first to roll out FTTC?

    1. Avatar gerarda says:

      This presumably relates to the phase two and possibly phase three take up not the roll out completed in 2011 that was supposed to (but presumably did not)achieve 95% coverage

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
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPER21
  • Plusnet £22.50 (*36.52)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £60 Reward Card
  • Onestream £22.50 (*27.99)
    Speed 45Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £22.95
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Vodafone £26.00
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £27.99 (*51.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £29.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPER21
  • TalkTalk £32.00 (*39.95)
    Speed: 145Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Giganet £35.00
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3044)
  2. BT (2882)
  3. FTTC (1835)
  4. Building Digital UK (1811)
  5. Politics (1773)
  6. Openreach (1707)
  7. Business (1542)
  8. FTTH (1351)
  9. Mobile Broadband (1345)
  10. Statistics (1321)
  11. 4G (1158)
  12. Fibre Optic (1107)
  13. Wireless Internet (1080)
  14. Virgin Media (1072)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1068)
  16. EE (767)
  17. Vodafone (747)
  18. TalkTalk (716)
  19. Sky Broadband (704)
  20. 5G (629)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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