Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

Survey Finds Support for UK Public Investment in Gigabit Broadband

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 (12:02 am) - Score 827

How fast is “ultrafast broadband” and should the Government help to deploy it? The latest online survey of 2,390 ISPreview.co.uk readers has found that 24.8% would commit £15bn+ of state aid to support its roll-out and 48.1% believe it should be defined via a speed of 1Gbps+ (Gigabit per second).

Traditionally many industry analysts and observes have tended to think of “ultrafast” as starting at 100Mbps (Megabits per second), although last year the United Kingdom’s telecoms regulator, Ofcom, chose to define it as needing to offer download speeds of greater than 300Mbps.

However there seems to be strong support for adopting a much stronger definition and similarly 62.3% felt that symmetrical performance (i.e. the same download and upload speed) should be a key requirement, which would make it difficult to deliver via anything except pure fibre optic cables.

At what download speed should the UK define the start of “ultrafast” broadband?
1Gbps+ (Gigabit) – 48.1%
300Mbps+ – 26.5%
100Mbps+ – 23.9%
None of the above – 1.4%

Should symmetrical speed (same download and upload rate) be a requirement of the definition?
Yes – 62.3%
No – 37.6%

Should the government put public money towards deploying “ultrafast” broadband in rural areas?
Yes – 78.2%
No – 21.7%

How much public money?
£15bn+ – 24.8%
£5bn – 21.2%
None! – 19.9%
£10bn – 17.5%
£1-4bn – 16.3%

Governments’ around the world, particularly in the EU and United Kingdom, are in the process of planning future policy for the support of “ultrafast” style connectivity (example), but how we choose to define its performance could have a big impact on the cost of deployment. Gigabit connectivity, for example, tends to require a pure fibre optic infrastructure and thus attracts the highest cost due to the need for extensive civil works.

A variety of reports have estimated that the cost of rolling out a pure fibre optic network to every corner of the United Kingdom could end up reaching £20-30bn, although we have to hope that a big chunk of that would come through private investment.

However the commercial models tend to break down outside of urban areas – with some exceptions like B4RN’s community approach or Gigaclear’s demand-led rural strategy – and that’s when the Government may need to step in.

Recently the Government’s new Digital Minister, Matthew Hancock, has signalled that he believes the future will depend upon ‘Gigabit speeds‘ and ‘full fibre‘ [FTTH/P]. Since then the Autumn Statement has seen another £400m committed to the cause and a cut to business rates on fibre (here). All of this is going in the direct direction, but more is sure to be needed.

Meanwhile this month’s new survey asks whether or not you’re happy with your ISP? Vote Here.

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
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
46 Responses
  1. FibreFred says:

    Maybe a final question on the survey should have been:

    Where would you like to divert public funds from to pay for Ultrafast investment:

    HS2/Rail
    NHS
    Prisons
    Education

    If its “free” money of course people will say yes and as much as possible please

    🙂

    1. chris conder says:

      Divert it from hs2, because that will cost far more, help far fewer and will be obsolete before it is built. it will wreck a lot of countryside just for a few fat cats to save 20 minutes on a journey to london. Decent internet for everyone will cut down on the need for journeys. And goods trains don’t need hs2.

    2. TheFacts says:

      @chris What speed do you belive is necessary to avoid a train journey?

    3. Rich says:

      HS2 is the obvious answer, it’s overpriced and pointless.

      FTTP @ 1GBit would help the entire country.

    4. Bob2002 says:

      We need a large, non-essential, arbitrary, budget we can cut … luckily here’s the £11 billion/year Department for International Development we prepared earlier …

    5. joe pineapples says:

      HS2 please

    6. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: Your question illustrates again that you are out of touch with the real world. You do not seem to understand that a “one size fits all” approach doesn’t work for businesses.

    7. TheFacts says:

      @GN – this was a comment on Chris saying decent internet will reduce journeys, but not explaining how. The vast majority do have that, yet still travel.

      Some time ago 128k ISDN2 line provided sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing.

    8. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: You are welcome to dispute Chris’ comments. But I think you are out of touch with the real world, potential non-commuting users require more than simple video conferencing.

    9. TheFacts says:

      @GN – what range of bandwidths for people trying to avoid journeys? Remote desktops are not a lot.

    10. TheFacts says:

      91% can order >24M so as usual Chris is mistaken.

    11. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: Why are you so keen on defending such a wasteful project like HS2? Are you a commuter who has a desperate need to save a few minutes daily when going to/from London? And are really doing nothing more than remote desktop and video conferencing?

      The issue isn’t so much about avoiding travelling to London, it’s about wasting so much money. Just like your other out-of-the-world option of having the government pay for fibre everywhere.

    12. TheFacts says:

      I am NOT defending HS2. It’s about connectivity reducing the need for travel and what would be required to make a significant reduction in journeys. Many people successfully work remotely now.

    13. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: According to some recent government studies:

      “The increase in teleworking facilitated by faster broadband will save about 60 million hours of leisure time per annum in the UK by 2024 (of which about 10 million hours are attributable to publicly funded intervention). By avoiding commuting costs, the additional teleworking enabled by faster broadband will lead to total household savings rising to £270 million p.a. by 2024 (£45 million of which are attributable to intervention).

      The availability and use of faster broadband will also have significant environmental impacts. It is estimated that, by 2024, it will save a total of:

      2.3 billion kms in annual commuting, predominantly in car usage, through enabling increased telework for a proportion of the workforce. This is in the order of 2% of the current total annual UK commuting distance.”

      See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257006/UK_Broadband_Impact_Study_-_Impact_Report_-_Nov_2013_-_Final.pdf

      As for your replies to Chris Conder: She made a number of valid points here, your nitpicking here is out of order!

    14. TheFacts says:

      http://www.commcham.com/storage/BT_RK_Report_2016.pdf

      Section 3.

      In the literature of remote working, broadband is little mentioned as a constraint. A study by Alcatel Lucent of remote office applications found no benefit for speeds above 6 Mbps

    15. TheFacts says:

      @GN – the report uses the word ‘faster’, faster than what? And may have a starting point of 2008, whereas it’s really about what is available now for the majority, which works well for teleworking from home. Encouraging teleworking is down to how businesses function (what is he really doing at home?) and has been possible since the days of ISDN2.

      Chris says ‘will’, it is really ‘does’. The technology is there now.

      The report was written over 3 years ago, before much of the BDUK and other rollouts.

    16. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: I can throw several other studies at you about the benefits of superfast broadband for remote workers. But I think you are just trying to argue here. As said before, stop nitpicking here at others like Chris Conder with your stupid questions. People like the ones from B4RN have done a fantastic job, there is no need for you to look down on them with your ‘I know better’ attitude. Come back to to the real world here!

    17. TheFacts says:

      Meanwhile 24.8% think £15b of public money should be used for my daft proposal.

      Has decent internet for 91% cut down journeys? Probably.

    18. MikeW says:

      @GNewton
      Sorry to rain on your parade here, but Chris comes from a world where few can telecommute. In her world, FTTP makes this amazing stuff come true. She believes that *only* FTTP makes this possible.

      I’m from a different world. I’ve been able to telecommute since 2000, when I first got 2Mbps ADSL.

      From 2005, there were 2 of us working unhampered at 8Mbps. We upgraded to FTTC in 2011 because we /could/, at the same price, not because we needed to.

      Right now, I wouldn’t want to drop back to ADSL, but we’d run perfectly well at 25/5 (as most Australians are discovering, when they choose their FTTP package on NBN). I guess that 20/3 is as low as I’d be comfortable going now, with upstream being the bigger limitation.

      I work in software development: one of the BSG’s heaviest demanders for business bandwidth. The wife is permanently connected to her VPN, managing documents, on calls, on video conferences, on web conferences, on training. She (and a lot of her colleagues) are heavy users of interactive services (about 50% of her department works from home). This stuff all works without a hitch.

      Once school kicks out, our business needs get augmented by teenage demands for online video. This stuff all works without a hitch.

      Our experience, over a period now closer to 2 decades than 1, is that FTTP will enable nothing extra for us. It won’t allow us to telecommute more than we already do. I can’t even predict *when* we might need it: there are no bigger demands on bandwidth that I can see coming for us.

      Taking money away from HS2 for FTTP to allow me to telecommute “better”, indeed taking it from any other project, would give zero return value to the country’s economy.

      Whose world gives you a better idea of the needs of the average telecommuter?
      Someone who has never had adequate speed, but just guesses at gigabit?
      Someone who has been living the telecommuting life for many years?

      Chris and the B4RN JFDIers are doing a great job in a place where FTTP is a benefit (and voluntary labour is a benefit too). I’d join in if I lived there, or create a project if I lived somewhere similar. But I don’t … I live in a much more average location, where FTTP wouldn’t be any particular benefit.

      In the “real world” here, there is little that Chris’ approach can help. Instead, our experience shows that almost anyone with access to Superfast speeds of 25Mbps will be able to telecommute with ease.

      As we know well, that means 92% of the country can achieve this right now, a still growing proportion.

      Real-life experience tells us there is no “telecommute” justification for public subsidy of FTTP for all. There might be a justification for people in Chris’ world, but there isn’t a justification for the vast majority.

    19. TheFacts says:

      @MikeW – totally, totally, agree with you. The bandwidth provided for call centres abroad is a small amount per desk with VOIP and Citrix.

    20. GNewton says:

      @MikeW: Thank you for sharing your experience with us. What are your needs for the upload speed, beyond remote desktop and video conferencing? Telecoms in a number of countries have found a good business case for offering symmetric broadband.

      @TheFacts: Yes, yours was indeed a “daft proposal”, and you know well that the ISPReview survey had its flaws with its selection bias. This was explained to you in another forum thread, but you just weren’t getting the point.

    21. MikeW says:

      Incidentally, the report that @GNewton references refers to “faster broadband”.

      The TLDR answer is: “faster broadband” means the outcome of the then-current superfast commercial deployment, plus the phase 1 BDUK superfast interventions, plus an assumption for future ultrafast commercial deployments. It looks like it didn’t include phase 2 interventions, nor allow for clawback re-investment.

      It meant improved speeds compared with their baseline year of 2008 – chosen deliberately to be before either VM or BT started superfast packages – followed through to 2024.

      The extrapolation forwards to 2024 shows ongoing speed improvements. It looks like the “with intervention” calculation shows a median household has having available a speed (combined up+down) of 100Mbps in 2015 growing to 200Mbps by 2020-21. I’d say that has turned into an under-estimate of what VM, BT and KC have currently planned between now and 2020.

    22. TheFacts says:

      @GN – there is irony in my use of the word ‘daft’. Clearly some think there is value in the option, although the detailed implementation would be a minefield, and maybe too late to start now.

    23. MikeW says:

      @GNewton
      Periods of “continuous,” real-time, upstream demand comes mostly (timewise) from VoIP. Less regularly is the upstream of a video-conference; most of the video-conferencing (timewise) is downstream-heavy instead. But the amount of data is relatively small.

      This “real time” demand has increased over the years, as these collaborative tools have been developed, and your average corporate desktop has gained enough grunt to use them smoothly. This part of our usage is the reason I wouldn’t want our upstream to drop much below 3Mbps now; the more widespread use of VoIP mean we no longer use a physical business line for calls, but that means I want an upstream speed higher than the minimum to be sure it always works well with other activities.

      For irregular demand, there are plenty of document transfers that go on. In both our cases, the corporate “filing system” is cloud-based, where interactions consist of “checking out” (downloading) and “checking in” (uploading changes). In my wife’s case, those are word, excel, pdf documents. In my case, a large download might be a full source tree (once every few months), or merging other people’s changes (daily). My uploads amount to checking in batches of code – perhaps 10-12 source files at a time, as I complete coding/testing (every few days). Plus perhaps one or two documentation files.

      Those irregular download/upload activities worked on 8/0.5 ADSL, and the nature of those interactions hasn’t changed much over time. We don’t need any greater capacity for these parts.

      Deployment of software systems to clients can be demanding on bandwidth, but for the most part this happens from machines in the cloud, using remote command-line or remote desktop. Such deployments don’t happen, as a matter of course, using bandwidth from anyone’s home.

      However, every now and again, some emergency support would be needed which *does* involve uploading from a home system in a hurry. In ADSL days, these would be the points where broadband pushed your patience the most; Telco systems are usually dimensioned to cope with all but (say) the worst 5 minutes in a month … and these occasions would be my worst case. If it became anything more than “every now and again”, we might have needed to consider an upgrade (ADSL2+ via TalkTalk, back then. Hmmm…), but a little patience proved to be enough.

      Symmetric needs? If this were all that happened over our internet connection, then we’d be relatively close to having symmetric needs … perhaps 2:1 downstream vs upstream.

      But the connections get used for other things. Research online. Reading the news. Catching up on social media. Cats on Youtube. All predominantly downstream-focussed. In the end, 4:1 seems like a more natural split for the combined use.

      But because the same connection is also a domestic, family one, it gets used in a completely different way in the evening, with more streaming involved. Then, the downstream dominates even more: 6:1 to 8:1 are more likely splits.

      When I said I wouldn’t want less than 20/3, that’s my estimate from combining the different ways the link gets used.

      You mention symmetric broadband, but what business case do you see for it? Particularly, what teleworker needs it?

      30 years ago, the best corporate use for symmetric 2Mbps circuits was for 30-channel ISDN links into the corporate PABX – ie voice calls. Though 30 trunks may have been enough for 1000+ employees.

      Nowadays, a block of SIP trunks (rather more than 30) would be a valid demand for symmetric bandwidth – so @TheFacts’ mention of a call centre is an example where that would be expected.

      But that’s not close to the way a teleworker might use a link. Or a 1-2 person business.

    24. MikeW says:

      Just to re-iterate where my experiences come from. I thought I should plot our particular use cases on that BSG figure; one heavy user, and one medium-heavy user:
      https://s29.postimg.org/vlr4ciuzr/BSG_Commercial_Requirements_2025_Us.png

      My personal case, software development, is an example of smallish business, but largish software system, where we have designed the mix of home vs cloud to work well (and securely) for us. The choices we have made allow us to work identically at home and in the office.

      My wife’s case, in a multi-national company with many people working from home, is much closer to an example of standard corporate culture (and security) growing to both allow teleworking as a matter of course, but also growing to make use of the improvements in collaborative tools as they grow too.

      Both of these are proper, serious teleworking use cases that have developed over years – with cooperative and demanding employers. They allow 100% work from home, not just occasional use. (*)

      They are going to represent the worst-case needs of an awful lot of workers. Not all, for sure, but a lot.

      (*) In fact, we work away from the office so much that our biggest problems nowadays are from a lack of social interaction with others. Broadband isn’t close to being a problem, unless it stops.

    25. TheFacts says:

      Chris said ‘Decent internet for everyone will cut down on the need for journeys’.

      We not know what Chris defines as decent and what journeys will eliminated. I suspect an example application is the online form filling that farmers need to do. Which should work on eg. 2M?

    26. GNewton says:

      @MikeW: Again, thank you for sharing your experience. It looks like you hardly ever use real bandwidth-hungry cloud services (in the upload direction) if I understand you correctly. I have to agree with you that a 3mbps upload speed is quite a limiting factor for some types of businesses. In our own case, upload is almost more important than download, but then again, different businesses have different needs.

    27. MikeW says:

      @GNewton
      Aye, all businesses are different.

      However, in establishing our smallish business, we deliberately designed our use of the cloud so we could collaborate, but to make uploads be less hungry.

      By that, I mean we don’t do stupid things like backing up the whole business data into the cloud on a nightly or weekly basis. Instead, the business data resides in the cloud to start with … and the day-to-day work is to read from the cloud in small chunks and write back to the cloud in small chunks.

      Data-intensive activities – compilation, builds, backups – all stay within the cloud. They rely on capacity within a data centre, not to/from individual homes or to/from individual offices.

      I recognise this isn’t a natural way to approach storage for a small business, especially one that has stored everything on a disc in the office, with everyone’s files kept separate. It is way beyond a company thinking that Dropbox might be a useful way to use the cloud. Beyond simple “shared folders” kept in sync too.

      However, it is quite natural thinking for big multi-office companies where work is really divided down into many separate projects – centralised document repositories help show you are running projects following the quality management systems.

      In software development, using self-managed version control systems like CVS and Subversion has been the norm for decades. It was a no-brainer for us to use this kind of system, running in our own cloud-based server. However, web-based systems like Sourceforge and Github are a demonstration of how things can move out into the cloud where you don’t even have to manage servers yourself.

      The same goes for raw documents; the earliest document control systems I used were IBM-mainframe-based, and not even based in the same country we were working in. The system my wife uses, with a web front-end is a serious tool the keeps track of a lot of regulatory information for them.

      For some free/open-source versions, you could take a look at OpenDocMan or LogicalDoc.

      For something really basic, perhaps Zoho Docs.

      For software development, and if I were starting now, I’d probably be looking at CloudForge or GitHub, and leave all the hosting to them.

      Swapping to a cloud-centric view is a scary prospect if you don’t trust the cloud to *really* look after your data for you. If you don’t trust it, and can’t construct a backup scheme that overcomes this lack of trust, then doing a backup from the cloud down into your house/business, at downstream rates, is a possibility that copes better with cheap asymmetric broadband.

    28. MikeW says:

      Can I ask what upstream needs your business demands that end up matching the downstream?

      Of course, the point I was making was more about the needs for a teleworker, rather than needs for a whole business. But it’ll be interesting anyway…

    29. GNewton says:

      @MikeW: It looks you keep all your data remotely, and use the whole range of remote tools. In a sense we did that in the past using a remote desktop software, with servers in the main office linked up to the Janet network.

      These days we have to use github quite a lot, despite its limitations and it not being so user-friendly. With hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide we also have the need to continually build and/or maintain their websites and ecommerce services, cloud services are simply not yet up to task for our purposes. With an ADSL2+ line we just wouldn’t be able to do the job, so we had to relocate to another place.

      How much of a control do you have for your remote server (which I guess you only use one, or just a few)? Down to a remote desktop interface where you can control everything, including testing, debugging, compiling, new builds etc?

    30. MikeW says:

      I’ll answer that backwards…

      The main server that holds the project data isn’t someone else’s “cloud service” as such. It is dedicated hosting (*), and we run the machine ourselves; the main “cloud service” that we provide to ourselves is a Subversion version control system. We’re old-school Unix types, so the command-line via SSH is enough for us to manage this (and the surrounding infrastructure).

      The day-to-day tasks of compiling, testing, debugging all go on on our own desktop/laptop machines, not the central server. As code is finished, it (code only) is checked in to SVN.

      Depending on the needs of current active projects, a machine could be set to run nightly builds, regression and integration tests; that machine could be one of the “local” machine, or our personal machines, or the central server, or a separate central VPS. It is likely these run as a batch cron job: Google for Jenkins.

      Likewise the “official” build can be done in any of these ways, though not started via cron. These official builds get checked in too (for trackability) – which means they tend to be performed on something with appropriate bandwidth. If you are building something large, on a tiny link, you’d do that centrally … but it wasn’t ever much of a problem on ADSL.

      Deployment is then a matter of taking something from the central server, and pushing it over to one of the client servers. All that is needed over the home/business line at this point is the SSH CLI, though there are newer ways to push deployments out of repositories.

      Some of those client servers are theirs, sometimes we run them (perhaps as VPSs). If we started afresh, I’m sure we’d deploy in a more modern way, using things like Heroku.

      We find cloud-based infrastructure to be no worse than anything you would want sitting in the office, and better than you would want littering the house. Cloud-based services are growing more mature – you eventually find someone offering a service for what you used to run for yourself. It becomes a matter of deciding whether to switch.

      (*) You can go expensive on this, or cheap. We like https://rimuhosting.com/order/vps-on-dedicated.jsp and have used their shared VPSs. Linode can be a source of very cheap VPSs too, and can be used on a very ad-hoc basis.

  2. Optimist says:

    These survey results are meaningless. They ask questions on ultrafast investment but allow those surveyed to choose what defintion of ultrafast they mean!

  3. AndyH says:

    It would be interesting next time to see what users would expect to pay for their symmetrical gigabit access.

  4. John Miles says:

    Assume Fibre installs cost £500 – £1000 per property and 22M homes. So the lower price gives about £ 11Bn. I’d rather that public money was spent on schools, hospitals, care for the elderly etc. and other things people actually need.

    1. FibreFred says:

      Without a doubt there are plenty of other things that take priority over rural fttp. But the question wasn’t asked as I say it isn’t free money

    2. AndyH says:

      There are 29 million premises in the UK and £500 wouldn’t even come close to the actual nationwide rollout cost per premise.

  5. Ethel Prunehat says:

    Dare I suggest that the ispreview readership may not be representative of the general public? As such, the result was only ever going to be along these lines [faster is better, and more faster is more better].
    I’m not sure how useful the last two questions are, either – without knowing the technology involved and what the definition of “rural area” is, how can you sensibly put a price on it?

  6. fastman says:

    HS2 will free up WCML – no spare path will allow significant more train to be run and will enable thousands of lorries to be moved off the m1 and the M6 !!!!

    but lest not the facts get in the way of an agenda

    1. Ignition says:

      Should free up a fair bit of capacity on the ECML too once the link to Leeds is done.

  7. Ignition says:

    Look at the answers to the last 2 questions. ‘None’ for how much money to be spent at 19.9%, while 21.7% think government shouldn’t fund rural broadband. Seems between the two questions 1.8% changed their mind.

    Of course not a typical bunch answering. I can think of way better uses for that cash than FTTP. It isn’t going to be coming from HS2.

    1. Mark Jackson says:

      Noticed that too, but we do tend to see little fluctuations like that when people vote. Maybe reflective of the change of tone via the more expressive option of “None!”.

  8. TheFacts says:

    Self selecting responders is not a valid method.

    1. GNewton says:

      I assume you have something better to offer then, don’t you?

      Self-selection bias is a major problem in research in sociology, psychology, economics and many other social sciences.

      Anyway, the issue with ISPReview’s survey is more of an selection bias, rather than self selection bias, where the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis has occurred in such a way that a proper randomization might not have been achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population.

    2. TheFacts says:

      Indeed, maybe a difference between want and need. The heading ‘finds support’ when clearly some will say yes is slightly misleading.

      Should have been a question about how much should be spent in rural areas…

    3. FibreFred says:

      … and where the money should be diverted from 🙂

    4. GNewton says:

      @TheFacts: I think you don’t get the point.

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 £15.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £19.50 (*22.50)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £20.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Shell Energy £21.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*38.20)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £70 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
»
Two ISPs on one line?
Author: unhappyguy1673
»
Brawband in Glasgow
Author: Simmie
»
Contract coming to an end.
Author: LeeWillRockYou
»
B535-232 + Poynting vs B818
Author: Conspiracy
»
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £20.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £24.00 (*27.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £25.00 (*29.50)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Gigaclear £27.00 (*59.00)
    Speed: 500Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £27.00 (*51.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3505)
  2. BT (3010)
  3. Politics (1925)
  4. Building Digital UK (1919)
  5. FTTC (1882)
  6. Openreach (1822)
  7. Business (1680)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1469)
  9. Statistics (1406)
  10. FTTH (1364)
  11. 4G (1271)
  12. Fibre Optic (1167)
  13. Virgin Media (1159)
  14. Wireless Internet (1153)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1139)
  16. Vodafone (836)
  17. EE (830)
  18. TalkTalk (761)
  19. 5G (760)
  20. Sky Broadband (744)
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