Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

BT Top 9.27 Mill UK Broadband Users as Openreach Connect 7.17 Mill to Fibre

Friday, January 27th, 2017 (7:50 am) - Score 1,547
BT HQ UK Building Logo

BT has today published their latest quarterly results (Q4 2016 calendar), which saw their retail broadband base grow by +83k to total 9,276,000 subscribers (up from +76k added in Q3) and Openreach report that 7,177,000 now take an FTTC/P based “fibre broadband” service via their UK network.

Generally the highlights for BT during the past few months have been the start (roll-out) of their huge new 300Mbps G.fast broadband pilot (here) and of course Ofcom’s announcement that it had been unable to reach a voluntary agreement over the future of Openreach (here). Instead Ofcom said it would force BT to adopt “legal separation” of their network access division, which they hope will improve competition and fairness in the market.

Lest we forget that BT’s consumer ISP division has also been busy deploying the IPv6 Internet addressing standard (here), which is now live across their network. However not all of their users have IPv6 enabled broadband routers and existing subscribers with the older HomeHub 4 / 5 routers should be updated over the next few weeks/months. The other recent change of note has been BT’s earlier than expected broadband price hike (here).

Elsewhere Openreach are continuing to roll-out “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) services across the United Kingdom, which covers over 26 million premises (mostly via their 40-80Mbps capable FTTC / VDSL2 technology) and by 2020 that will also include 2 million premises passed with 1Gbps capable FTTP/H (currently it’s 350,000+). The G.fast roll-out will then add around 10 million premises to this by 2020, but that may largely overlap with existing FTTC.

Otherwise BT’s financial situation remains in good health, albeit with a few weaker areas. However this weeks Italian accounting scandal has had an impact. Apparently total adjustments relating to the investigation of BT’s Italian business amount to £268m for prior year errors, for which they’ve revised prior periods, and a specific item charge of £245m for changes in accounting estimates (£145m in Q2 and £100m in Q3).

Key Highlights from Today’s Quarterly Report
* BT Groups’ quarterly revenue hit £6,128m (up from £6,007m in Q3 2016)
* BT Group’s reported profits before tax hit £526m (down from £671m)
* BT Group’s net debt hit £8,981m (down from £9,567m)
* BT Wholesale’s quarterly operating profit hit £135m (up from £129m)
* Openreach’s quarterly operating profit hit £327m (up from £297m)
* Openreach’s quarterly capital expenditure hit £409m (up from £357m)

We should also highlight the latest update with regards to BT’s capital expenditure and clawback / gainshare due to the Government’s Broadband Delivery UK roll-out programme, which confirms that £325m of public funding is now becoming available for reinvestment into future “fibre” expansion (up from £292m in Q3 2016). The figure is likely to rise further as FTTC/P take-up improves (see the Government’s recent announcement).

Capital Expenditure and BDUK

Our base-case assumption for take-up in BDUK areas remains at 33%. Under the terms of the BDUK programme, we have a potential obligation to either re-invest or repay grant funding depending on factors including the level of customer take-up achieved. While we have recognised gross grant funding of £45m (Q3 2015/16: £85m) in line with network build in the quarter, we have also deferred £34m (Q3 2015/16: £22m) of the total grant funding to reflect higher take-up levels on a number of contracts. To date we have deferred £325m.

Now let’s take a closer look at BT’s different divisions.

BT Consumer / Retail

First we’ll examine how well BT’s own retail ISP business (sells broadband, phone, mobile and TV services directly to residential and business customers) has done over the past quarter. As usual the operator, which benefits from a strong level of advertising and consumer familiarity, appears to have delivered a good quarter for broadband and fibre growth. However the bleed of mobile subscribers has grown substantially.

Broadband Subs TV Subs Mobile Subs + EE
Fibre Subs
Q4 2016 TOTAL
9,276,000 1,736,000 30,168,000 4,733,000
Subs Change (Q4) +83,000 +52,000 -80,000 +260,000
Q3 2016 TOTAL
9,193,000 1,684,000 30,248,000 4,473,000
Subs Change (Q3) +76,000 +64,000 -20,000 +216,000

On the subject of EE, the BT owned mobile business has now expanded its geographic 4G network coverage to 75% of the UK (99% population coverage) and they aim to reach 92% by September 2017, followed by 95% by the end of December 2020. The 4G customer base has also reached 18.2 million, which is well over half of their total mobile subs above.

It’s worth pointing out that BT’s own subscribers still account for the lion’s share of “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) users on Openreach’s national network, but rivals are making an increasingly big dent (see below).

Openreach & Wholesale

The results from Openreach tend to reflect the wider market, at least in respect to BT’s national network infrastructure and those independent ISPs that buy services over it (i.e. the total broadband and “fibre” lines below combine customers from both BT Consumer and many other ISPs that buy their lines from Openreach).

Note: Unbundled (LLU) lines are mostly used by ISPs that have installed some of their own kit inside Openreach’s network in order to gain more control over their own products and services (e.g. TalkTalk and Sky Broadband). In that sense fully unbundled (MPF) lines are more popular because they afford ISPs the most control and flexibility to differentiate themselves.

Total UK Broadband Lines
Fully Unbundled MPF Lines
Shared Unbundled SMPF Lines
Fibre Lines (FTTC/P)
Q4 2016 TOTAL
20,308,000 9,023,000 1,144,000 7,177,000
Subs Change (Q4) +189,000 +73,000 +50,000 +498,000
Q3 2016 TOTAL
20,119,000 8,950,000 1,094,000 6,679,000
Subs Change (Q3) +116,000 +16,000 +27,000 +440,000

We note the quarterly increase of +498K in new “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) lines, which of course includes the +260K added via BT’s Consumer division. In other words, BT’s retail rivals (e.g. Sky, TalkTalk, Zen Internet etc.) accounted for +238K of the total quarterly increase (up from +224K in the previous quarter). We should also point out that the SMPF total above includes external fibre services on BT WLR (Wholesale Line Rental) lines.

Separately, BTWholesale delivered a total of just 865,000 external broadband lines for other ISPs, which has fallen by -17,000 in the quarter (worse than the -3,000 in Q3).

Gavin Patterson, CEO of BT Group, said:

“The good progress we’re making across most of the business has unfortunately been overshadowed by the results of our investigation into our Italian operations and our outlook. We’ve undertaken extensive investigations into our Italian business, including an independent review by KPMG, and I am deeply disappointed with the unacceptable practices by some that we’ve found. This has no place at BT, and it undermines the good work we’re doing elsewhere in the Group. We are committed to ensuring the highest standards across the whole of BT.

We face a more challenging outlook in the UK public sector and international corporate markets but we’ve seen record growth at EE, strong momentum in Consumer, and our highest ever fibre net connections in Openreach. Customer experience remains a top priority. EE is now answering 100 per cent of its customers’ calls in the UK and Ireland. In Openreach, missed appointments have halved year on year. We’ll continue to invest to ensure our service levels improve and that our customers see the benefit.

We are pushing ahead with reforms at Openreach, particularly on governance and customer service and continue to believe an agreement can be reached with Ofcom on its Digital Communications Review. We think these changes address Ofcom’s concerns and can form the basis for a fair, proportionate and sustainable settlement.”

The year ahead will no doubt present plenty of challenges for BT, most notably via their on-going battle with Ofcom over the future of Openreach. The regulator is about the notify the European Commission of their intent to introduce “legal separation” and so there’s still time for a voluntary agreement to be reached, but alternatively BT may decide to fight it out and if so then we could still be writing about this at the same time next year.

Otherwise we expect to see BT conduct a much faster roll-out of ultrafast FTTP technology during 2017, as well as the start of Openreach’s commercial G.fast deployment during the latter half of the year and at some point BT’s Consumer / Retail ISP division might even offer up that long awaited 4G Femotcell equipped home broadband router.

Add to Diigo
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
53 Responses
  1. Avatar NGA for all

    It is good to see the Capital Deferral climbing to £325m. Less talk about clawback so perhaps the capital likely to be owed is beginning to be paid to Local Authority investment accounts using these increases.

    Let’s hope these resources can be converted into a more FTTP in rural and force the general availability of FTTP-GPON to businesses.

    • Avatar TheFacts

      ‘perhaps’, ‘likely’. I thought you were the expert on this knowing the exact situation.

      What is the LA investment account?

    • Avatar Ignition

      A reminder that BT bill for the work after they are done. Deferral means just that: they were due £45m as a baseline but didn’t bill £34m due to take up, and will bill it later once they have reinvested it in additional coverage.

      They use the word ‘deferral’ for a reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferral

      ‘A Deferral, in accrual accounting, is any account where the asset or liability is not realized until a future date (accounting period), e.g. annuities, charges, taxes, income, etc. The deferred item may be carried, dependent on type of deferral, as either an asset or liability. See also accrual.’

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      It’s simply the gainshare process in operation, which was always in the BDUK contracts. We know that money is going to be used to extend coverage by many of the local BDUK projects as we’ve already seen several announcements on the matter.

      As far as FTTC/FTTP take-up is concerned, if the current rate continues, then there ought to be a 50% take-up level by about mid 2018. If echoed onto BDUK that would mean more clawback money will be released. I would also have thought that it has improved the original commercial business cases too.

      It will be interesting to track g.fast takeup. I don’t expect it to be on anything like this level, even when just calculated on the premises where it’s available unless it carried virtually no price premium.

      nb. by takup, I’m talking about BB lines, not the total number of fixed lines.

    • Avatar AndyH

      It’s been explained to NGA for all time and time again how capital referrals work. He doesn’t listen and it gets rather embarrassing seeing how he’s a consultant on this….

    • Avatar NGA for all

      What’s the problem, for the most part it should be a further £325m into Openreach’s network in hard to reach areas?

      It would be good for Openreach to reveal how much rural FTTP it could deliver if all this money and the monies to come are re-invested.

      The ‘investment account’ was referenced in the Oxera report where a post phase 1 ‘true up ‘, BT would pay any capital contribution outstanding.

      As per the definition, there is plenty of discretion associated with how a deferral is subsequently treated, so it would be good to see an associated plan on converting this deferral into improved UK broadband coverage.

      In the meantime these monies are available to BT Group for other projects.

    • Avatar MikeW

      @Ignition, @NFA

      I have a slightly different take on the use & meaning of deferral. I think the process works like this…

      1. I think the £325m is money that BT has indeed billed LAs for, as per the contract terms, and the money has been handed over. So the money is sitting in BT’s cash accounts somewhere.

      2. I then see that the “deferral” means this: that BT’s accounting people are putting it into the books as a “deferred” item, because they know the money isn’t really theirs, and is going to be repaid in the future. If BT accounted for this as a full grant, it would look (in the books) temporarily like BT spent less on capex, and so made more profit. Then, on the date of refund (which might be 2022), they’d suddenly look to make a loss.

      3. BT has made an offer to the LA’s to allow them to spend this money, even before it returns to the LA’s own cash accounts. The LA’s, in turn, have been using contracts with BT to spend it on further coverage.

      4. So (@NFA, I’m looking at you), the LAs are placing orders with BT to spend this money, even while it still sits quietly in a BT account. BT are going ahead with their plans to expand coverage. This is what you are worried about, right?

      5. When BT actually deploy the equipment, they get to bill the LA for it … but, rather than money changing hands from the LA, this time the money just moves notionally within BT, from that neglected corner into prime position in the accounts.

      That’s how I see the money flow, separate from the accounting, and separate from the planning on how to spend it again in another phase.

      This site has had plenty of articles with LA’s saying that they are going to spend their clawback/gainshare. One of the most recent is CSW, where they also report it on their own website:
      http://www.cswbroadband.org.uk/thousands-more-warwickshire-households-and-businesses-to-get-fibre-broadband-boost/

    • Avatar NGA for all

      MikeW – broadly agree, but only a fraction of the clawback is being used to date to re-contract, I have counted £89m of the £130m being earmarked for extensions. Most Phase 2 monies is new BDUK grants so much is new money, so these deferrals have to keep growing, and much is to be gained by pressing for evidence of BT capital contribution.

  2. Avatar Diggory

    I wonder if that GBP325m was dedicated solely to outside-in FTTP how many sub 24mbps properties would remain.

    • Avatar NGA for all

      There is room to plan for some 500k FTTP rural installs given the emerging resources. Why they were not planned in the first place is debatable but the opportunity remains if the will remains to overcome the state aid and procurement processes. Less clear is BT’s appetite.

    • Avatar AndyH

      500k FTTP rural installs from £325m – that equates to £650 per premises passed….I will be very interested how you come up with these numbers as they look plucked out of thin air to me.

    • Avatar NGA for all

      AndyH it is not just this £325m, it is the LA underspends and the balances held in each of investment accounts containing whatever BT owes from the £358m phase capital contribution to allowable costs.

      If these funds are combined with some incentive for BT within the WLA 2017 review then there is much that can be done.

      A revised FTTPod product supporting a minimum order of four FTTP-GPON connections, with a distance related connection charge-perhaps a £100 per pole length for the final drop would be very helpful in extending coverage and provide a means for these funds to be used constructively.

      I am a big fan of what is a great engineering effort, but I am less impressed by the financial PR.

    • Avatar NGA for all

      AndyH – further if phase 2 delivery of some £400m plus with work scheduled for 7,500 more structures is informed by phase 1, then more FTTP will be delivered anyway or at least could be and should be.
      The opportunity exists to go from what is already a successful project in public sector terms to being a profoundly successful project from the taxpayers/licence payers perspective.

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ NGA

      Phase 1 LA underspend was £150m.

      Please show how you can deliver 500k rural FTTP with the LA + BT underspend. There must be some evidence behind your numbers to make bold claims like you have…

      Also, please read this – http://www.navigatingaccounting.com/sites/default/files/Course/TA/Chapter_05_accru_def_no_solutions.pdf The £325m and £150m underspends are NOT sitting in some bank accounts somewhere…

    • Avatar NGA for all

      AndyH – The £150m is sitting in LA accounts and the £325m is sitting in BT’s accounts. You not allowing for the BT capital investment which according to the NAO for Phase 1 is £358m. Unless BT is attempting portray capital costs for VDSL much higher than those presented to the CMS Select Committee then a significant amount is owed and we may find reference to these in due course. The Deferral could of course include a mix of capital owed and gainshare but it will be increase quarter by quarter however it is described.

      As it stands a rule of thumb for urban FTTP is sub £500 per connection. I am allowing for average of £1,000 and assume you accept orders in minimum of 4 per splitter. If we take the £325m, the £150m, allow for some capital owed, then out of that £500m can be found is not out of order to suggest 500k connections could be accommodated. This is before a BT contribution and before a customer contribution.

    • Avatar Malcolm

      @AndyH

      In this article on ISPreview http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/01/gloucestershire-herefordshire-uk-moot-big-broadband-extension.html there is a link to the Gigaclear bid for the next part of the Fastershire project ( Lots 3c, 3d, 3e and 4 )

      These areas cover 37,800 properties and the subsidies require from the councils is £12.8M, with Gigaclear adding £29.2M of private investment. This equates to £1111 per property.

      To supply FTTP to 500K properties would, at the above rate, cost in the region of £555M. This is in the same ballpark as the £325M + £150M mention above. And this is assuming that Gigaclear wouldn’t use any private investment.

    • Avatar TheManStan

      The logical costing would be to use Gigaclear’s cost for BDUK network provision… not your usual random numbers…

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ Malcom

      The Gigaclear costs vary quite substantially depending on the region. We’ve seen as high as £1,750 per premises passed (I believe) in their contracts.

      BT will not put a price per premises passed for FTTP (Gavin Patterson was grilled on it again in the investor call today) because the cost really does vary depending on the location and build. Needless to say though, BT’s way of deploying FTTP is probably the most expensive way of doing it. Even with the improved processes that have been made, it still takes a lot of time and it’s costly.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: Curious, why is BT’s way of deploying FTTP the most expensive way of doing it? Especially in view of the fact that BT already own ducts and poles.

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ Gnewton

      It’s very labour intensive. BT don’t have ductwork or overhead cabling to every single property in the country. The cost of repairing and unblocking ductwork is very expensive and time consuming.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: Fair enough. Why though should it be more labour-intensive than other telecoms doing FTTP in the UK?

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ Gnewton – Do any other telecoms companies deploy FTTP in the same way as BT in the UK?

    • Avatar MikeW

      @Malcolm, @NFA, @Diggory
      Lots of number analysis for you. Hope it helps…

      We’ve seen Gigaclear say that they spend £1,000 per home in their self-funded villages, where they don’t intend to reach every property at the outer edges.

      In their first wave of BDUK contract wins (Berkshire, IIRC), the finance seemed to come out at £1,000 per home plus about £500 per home subsidy.

      In the CDS contract win, the numbers look like they total over £1750 per property. Still a high percentage investment from Gigaclear, though. The project is a SEP one (ie target 95%), and GC are reaching 35,000 out of 53,000 in the intervention area. I guess the other 18k (the final third?) are much harder (ie much more expensive).

      So far, that money is to pass 35k premises, but to connect none of them. It gets a connection point on the edge of the property.

      To connect each home, there’s an activation fee of £100 plus an installation fee that starts at £130 (for distances up to 10m to the router location), £200 up to 35m, and £300 up to 100m. You could bank on the cheapest installation fee for the bulk of a modern executive shoebox estate, but I’m not sure what it would turn out to be in deeper rural Devon. Allow over £2,000 to both pass a property and connect it.

      Conclusion for Gigaclear:
      For a property around the 95th percentile (ie a SEP target), you can say £1,750 to pass unconnected and £2,050 to pass it and connect it. If you expect takeup at 50%, then
      – Passing 2 houses, but connecting 1 costs £3,800
      – Passing 2,000 houses, and connecting 1,000 costs £3.8m
      – Passing 500k houses, and connecting 250k costs £950m
      – Funding: £50m from householders, £300m from LAs, £600m from Gigaclear
      – Those 500k houses = 1.8% of UK premises

      But you can only get 1.8% covered if you can persuade Gigaclear to bid in your area … and they seem to mostly only want to get involved in a strip along the M4 and the end of the M5 right now.

      Meanwhile…

      That old 2008 BSG paper for funding NGA… That came up with some prices “per property connected” of around £2,000 in urban areas, £7,000 in fairly hard to reach and £12,000 in the worst case. However, it also set those “connected” figures assuming a 31% takeup.

      So, in terms of “per property passed” figures instead, those BSG figures would map to
      – £600 in urban areas
      – £2,100 in fairly hard to reach areas (the 93rd-97th percentile)
      – £3,700 in the worst case (the hardest 3%)

      These BSG figure include the kind of items that the consumer would pay for with the “activation fee”, so in comparison
      – That “£600 in urban areas” is very close to @NFA’s costing of £500.
      – That “£2,100 in fairly hard areas” is very close to GC+CDS in the 95th percentile.
      – Can we assume that the “£3,700 worst case” really does represent “outside-in”?

      So, @NFA, if you want to be funding FTTP in the rural areas left after SEP have finished, your cheapest properties probably match those GC+CDS ones: (around £1,750 to pass, £2,000 to pass and connect), and the average of a whole “outside-in” plan might well be nearer £3,500 per premises passed.

      That’s a long way from your average of £1,000.

      Conclusion from BSG:
      – Passing 2 houses, but connecting 1 costs £7,200
      – Passing 2,000 houses, and connecting 1,000 costs £7.2m
      – Passing 264k houses, and connecting 132k costs £950m
      – Funding: £50m from householders, £300m from LAs, £600m from Gigaclear
      – Those 264k houses = 0.9% of UK premises

      There are about 850k premises in the final 3% in the UK. If you did them all “outside-in”, you’d be looking at a total cost of £3bn.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: You still haven’t fully answered my question. How do other telecoms manage to deploy fibre cheaper than BT? You were the one saying that BTs way of fibre deployment probably is the most expensive one.

    • Avatar Fastman

      Openreach responsibility is up to the NTE in the house — the most challenging elelemt is the drop between the DP and premise and that get mors challenging the more rural you get

    • Avatar NGA for all

      @MikeW we are more aligned than you imagine, I am outlining the potential from what are unique and peculiar circumstances. Demonstrating that budgets of £1000-£1,200 per premise are available for 500k customers to which customer connection fees and vendor contribution can be added means we are not hugely out on your workings.

      At any level there is a huge sum of money within the existing BDUK process under BT’s control which can be used to make a substantive contribution to furthering a more complete upgrade.

      I share you views on the BSG numbers and these stylised costs have found their way into Ofcom’s latest USO paper.

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ NGA

      “we are more aligned than you imagine” and “I am allowing for average of £1,000”

      ??? confused.com

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ GNewton

      BT run the fibre into the property. The installation fee doesn’t come close to covering this cost and often ISPs do not pass the charge on.

      There is no microtrenching and there is a huge amount of work to deploy new ducting and repair broken/clogged existing ducting.

    • Avatar NGA for all

      @AndyH, MikeW – let me clarify, I am happy with the use 0f Gigaclear workings towards £1,750 for budget making purposes. The £1,200 working average can also work if he add customer connection fees and a vendor contribution.

      I would be unhappy with references to BSG work as it is out of date. BSG estimated UK FTTC at £5bn, it will land at half that with the Government subsidies paying half.

      There will be plenty of outlayers.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: You still haven’t quite answered my question. I am talking about FTTP, whether it’s from BT, Gigaclear, or others. FTTP by its nature runs into the house. Isn’t there a difference between premises passed (not quite up to house), and takeup? Why can’t BT deploy the more economic methods of its competitors?

    • Avatar NGA for all

      @TheManStan – random numbers? £350m less wrong that you might like and counting. This capital deferral needs to rise and rise, but it provides a good opportunity for Openreach if it prepares for the possibility.
      The £1000-£1200 is a number some of your colleagues are familiar with for planning purposes.
      All I hope your would grasp is the scale of the number and the opportunity for engineering work it represents.
      Surely, this is a good thing and BT folk should welcome it.

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ GNewton

      I have explained why.

      BT have their way of deploying and building FTTP and Gigaclear have their method. At nationwide level, BT’s method is more suitable for a mixture of rural an urban areas.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: How does BTs rural FTTP differ from Gigaclear’s FTTP? They are both fibre to the premise, so why has BT higher costs than Gigaclear for deployment? and more importantly, what prevents BT from adopting the cheaper deployment methods of others?

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ Gnewton – Cheapest does not always equal best.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: Why not answering my question? Why has BT higher costs than Gigaclear for deployment? What prevents BT from adopting the cheaper deployment methods of others? Is Gigaclear’s fibre inferior to BT’s fibre?

    • Avatar AndyH

      @ GNewton – I’ve answered. Read and read again.

    • Avatar GNewton

      @AndyH: I give up on you. You are unable to provide a clear explanation.

      BT can deploy fibre as cost effective, or even more cost effective than e.g. Gigaclear.

    • Avatar Diggory

      Thanks @MikeW – informative and interesting figures.

    • Avatar MikeW

      @GNewton

      I think you missed something of significance in @AndyH’s answers: the word microtrenching, vs the ducting (with blockages) that BT has.

      It appears that Gigaclear are happy to microtrench. BT aren’t … and want things in ducts. Accessible and re-usable ducts.

      The time you can work out whether one was better than the other is in 2-3 decades.

    • Avatar ChrisLewis

      I have read through the comments and it looks like GNewton is just asking the same rhetorical questions to me.

      BT is the major operator and owns a huge amount of infrastructure. It would not make any sense for them to build that all infrastructure again. They also cannot cherry pick and have different network builds in different parts of the country.

      Another important aspect here is we do not know what it actually costs Gigaclear to deploy FTTP here. They make be doing it at a loss or breakeven, we just don’t know.

    • Avatar TheManStan

      @NGA

      Low balling figures in a higher cost environment does your credibility no favours at all…

      £1000-1200 are costs for normal Gigaclear commercial deployments, all of Gigaclear’s BDUK costs are £1500+…

      So any follow on BDUK will be of the higher hanging (more expensive) fruit not the low cost they’ve all been done.

      So the correct cost figures to use in an estimate are very clear cut.

      BDUK:
      Fastershire – £10,000,000 – 6,500 properties – £1,538 per
      West berkshire – £19,700,000 – 11,700 properties – £1,683 per
      Connecting Devon Somerset – £62,250,000 – 35,225 properties – £1,767 per
      Superfast Essex – £7,500,000 – 4,500 properties – £1,666 per

      Average across all 4 projects £1,716 per property, so 70% higher than your random cost based on published per property costs.

      Commerical:
      Connected Counties – £4,000,000 – 4,000 properties – £1,000 per

  3. Avatar Rog

    Oh good that’s 9.27 Mill price rises they might get in April.

  4. Avatar fastman

    the biggest issue FTTP s the final Drop from DP to premise that the hard bit and the bit that unknown and in rural areas those Drops can be significant especially if you deal with continuous DP’s that can run for an number of Kilometres — will be interesting to see how others might deal with those challenges and what they pass on the the subscribers –

    • Avatar NGA for all

      This seems a good time to build on some very good work already. I assume it is more a resource issue, but making it demand led with distance related connection fees should make it manageable.

  5. Avatar Fastman

    NGA its no about distance its about the specifics of each premises and how you get to each individual premise – 400m direc Direct in ground will be more of an issue that 900 m on aireal (assuming the poles are relatively short diatance between them)

    • Avatar NGA for all

      Thanks, so you need to contract conservatively, understood. Suggests the returning funds need to be treated differently at some point to ever reducing sized procurements, some switch is needed to a supported and demand led FTTP-GPON service, where each party can make a contribution. Gigaclear and others could benefit form the same design.
      A white paper of sorts is needed describing the options BT could support.

      BT is not actually taking the credit it deserves for the FTTP effort to date.

  6. Avatar Sledgehammer

    So BT have 7.17 million ftth/p + fttc connections and claim to be able to connect 95.5% of the UK, it is going to take a whole lot longer to increase the number of people connected by FTTC or FTTH/P. Does the 7.17 million include business connections as well?

    • Avatar Fastman

      those will be FTTC Connections in what ever form those FTTC connections come from

    • Avatar MikeW

      It is indeed going to take longer to connect them all… if, it turns out, they want to. Even though this quarter has had the highest number of connections, the good news is that there doesn’t appear to be a queue forming.

      The number connected has averaged 400,000 per quarter for the last 3 years, with the peak being nigh on 500,000. Another 3.5 years to double the number of connections, minimum.

  7. Avatar paul

    As we know living in the sticks, FTTC is just as slow as the old copper lines. If having FTTC means that BT/OpenReach can tick a box saying “customer is connected to fibre”, then this is complete and utter BS.

    • Avatar TheFacts

      What speed do you get, and where are you?

    • Avatar MikeW

      They can tick a box saying you are connected to fibre, but they can’t tick the important box – the one that says you get superfast speeds. That’s the box that needs ticking to get the subsidy…

    • Avatar alan

      How do they define a user is “superfast” when their checker gives a low and high speed range.

      If someone is quoted on the checker as speeds between 20Mb and 35Mb as an example is that property deemed superfast capable?

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 £21.00 (*25.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £50 Shopping Voucher
  • TalkTalk £21.95 (*36.00)
    Avg. Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £21.99 (*34.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £75 Cashback
  • SSE £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2537)
  2. FTTP (2255)
  3. FTTC (1677)
  4. Building Digital UK (1616)
  5. Politics (1446)
  6. Openreach (1432)
  7. Business (1259)
  8. Statistics (1114)
  9. FTTH (1106)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1059)
  11. Fibre Optic (978)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (924)
  13. 4G (919)
  14. Wireless Internet (919)
  15. Virgin Media (871)
  16. EE (606)
  17. Sky Broadband (602)
  18. TalkTalk (587)
  19. Vodafone (535)
  20. 3G (418)
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