Cityfibre and Vodafone Name First UK City for 1Gbps Home Broadband UPDATE
Fibre optic network developer Cityfibre has today announced that Milton Keynes will be the first of several cities to benefit from their large-scale rollout of a 1Gbps FTTH “full fibre” ultrafast broadband network with Vodafone, which will initially aim to cover 1 million UK homes.
A few months ago Cityfibre announced that it had raised an additional £200 million of private investment to help expand their Fibre-to-the-Premises / Home (FTTP/H) network (here), which until now had largely focused on connecting up specific businesses and public sector sites in around 42 cities and large towns across the United Kingdom (expected to reach 50 by 2020).
However the operator proposed that their latest injection of funding could build on that approach by bringing their network to residential homes in 5 – 10 of their existing towns and cities from 2018. Cityfibre added that its mid-term target to reach 50 UK towns and cities could also provide an opportunity to deliver FTTH to “no less than 5 million premises” by 2025.
Since then Vodafone and Cityfibre have done a £500m deal to rollout FTTH (here). Phase One of this deployment – due to start during H1 2018 – will seek to reach a “minimum” of 1 million UK homes in up to 12 of their existing cities and towns, which according to Vodafone is expected to be “largely complete” by 2021.
After that there’s also the “potential to extend” this up to 5 million homes (approximately 50 towns and cities, representing 20% of the current UK broadband market) by 2025, which will require more investment. Today we finally learnt that Milton Keynes will be the first to benefit from this rollout and Cityfibre has committed £40 million worth of private investment in order to make it happen.
Nick Jeffery, Vodafone UK Chief Executive, said:
“Milton Keynes is fast becoming a UK leader for productivity and growth, with its economic prospects only likely to improve following the opening of the East West Rail project. We believe that residents deserve a digital communications service to match their ambitions. This is why we are providing gigabit-capable connections to transform the way we live and work.”
Greg Mesch, Chief Executive at CityFibre, added:
“The partnership between Vodafone and CityFibre aims to tackle the huge problem the UK faces in terms of digital inadequacy and will help fulfil our vision of a Gigabit Britain. We are at the early stages of creating the Gigabit fibre network that the UK needs and deserves, and with the announcement of Milton Keynes as our first project we are well on our way to making this vision a reality. Full speed ahead.”
We should point out that Cityfibre already has a 162km long Dark Fibre style network in MK, which it acquired from KCOM at the end of 2015 and then upgraded in order to better serve local businesses (here). This will essentially make up the foundation of their new FTTH service, which will have to take that fibre optic cable to each individual property.
The construction phase is due to start in March 2018 (first customers live by the end of 2018) and the aim will be to reach “nearly every business and home” in the city (a specific premises or % coverage target has not been supplied). Naturally Vodafone has already setup a pre-registration page for this service, which you can visit here: https://www.vodafone.co.uk/broadband/ultrafast .
Admittedly this isn’t the first time that Cityfibre has tried to deploy an ultrafast Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) network into residential areas. The operator also serves some homes via a legacy network in Bournemouth (under 20,000 homes passed) and they’re still rolling out to around 55,000 homes in the city of York with TalkTalk and Sky Broadband (here). We should point out that Sky has stopped investing in the York roll-out.
The deployment in York was considered somewhat of a test case and Cityfibre claims that it helped to demonstrate “strong demand” for Gigabit speeds, which is something that will be vital to achieve in order for their economic model to work. But to pull that off would require a strong ISP partner to help market the service at scale, which is why the deal with Vodafone is so critical.
Cityfibre and Vodafone hope to complement this effort by harnessing the Government’s new 5-year business rates holiday for new fibre networks (here), as well as the £400m Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund (here) and possibly some of the £200m that has been set aside to support innovative fibre optic and 5G projects in local areas (here).
Meanwhile Openreach are also still considering their own aspiration for a large-scale deployment of FTTP/H, which could reach up to 10 million premises by around 2025 (here) and at a cost of £3bn to £6bn (here). On top of that Milton Keynes is already well covered by “superfast broadband” (24Mbps+) networks via Openreach and 14% can get their FTTP, although obviously an affordable 1Gbps FTTH across the whole city is in a different league.
UPDATE 9:30am
We’ve just had a comment from Openreach (BT).
An Openreach Spokesperson said:
“We welcome the competition. For many years we’ve been the only major investor in Milton Keynes’ digital infrastructure, and as a result it’s now one of the best connected places in Britain with much higher full fibre broadband coverage than the rest of country (around 14% versus a national average of 2% according to Thinkbroadband).
Nearly all (98%) of Milton Keynes can order ‘superfast’ broadband services today from a choice of retailers over our network, and just 1% of households can’t access a service of at least 10Mbps.
We’ve invested more than £11bn into our network over the last decade and we’re continuing to upgrade urban areas like Milton Keynes as well as more rural locations that are much harder to serve.”
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 X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook and Linkedin.
« Full Fibre ISP Seethelight Tweaks UK Broadband and Phone Prices
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (5533)
- BT (3518)
- Politics (2542)
- Openreach (2299)
- Business (2267)
- Building Digital UK (2247)
- FTTC (2045)
- Mobile Broadband (1978)
- Statistics (1790)
- 4G (1669)
- Virgin Media (1621)
- Ofcom Regulation (1466)
- Fibre Optic (1396)
- Wireless Internet (1392)
- FTTH (1382)
I think for a company to say that their the aim will be to reach “nearly every business and home” in the city is way too ambitious for Milton Keynes.
Over the years there has been many companies that have tried to deploy a full network in Milton Keynes and they have all failed. I would hope that this project is going to be different, but unless they are going to do something radical that no one else has done before then it’s not going to work.
Maby they define the City of Milton Keynes differently from others.
Technically the City of London is only 1 and a half square miles big.
@AndyC Well for a start off Milton Keynes is not a city, people just assume it is because the locals call the shopping centre the city. I doubt very much that it’s going to spend all that time and money just to install a fibre network for the shops when it says that it’s going to cover nearly every home.
Milton Keynes is about nearly 40 square miles
Not a city… but what’s in a name. The superfast we have now isn’t exactly superfast either!
This will probably be restricted to the grid road area of Milton Keynes and leave out the outlying areas.
It will be good to have competition in the area, as some FTTC cabinets are full with no plans to add extra capacity.
(some areas on the eastern area are under See-the-Light/GTC)
Even if they just did the grid road area of Milton Keynes it would cover over 35 times the area of Central London. I would love to see this happen, but it’s a massive project and would be a UK first.
I’m interested (as I am sure Mark is too) in knowing which cabinet is full and they are refusing to install extra capacity at it too.
Its been a goal for a number of years to find at least one cabinet where this is the case, as it has massive ramifications potentially for coverage data.
If you don’t want to post, feel free to use the obvious thinkbroadband email address for me and also add in Mark from ISPreview
Cabinet 34 on NEWPORT PAGNELL exchange
CodeLook is saying for Newport Pagnell cabinet P34
“Phase BDUK Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes 12b”
“FTTC Available from 28th June 2015, being expanded by September 2018”
They are usually accurate about the fact of future upgrades but perhaps less so over timing
eg. MK14 5BY availability?
Looks like a 128 cab on streetview.
VDSL Range A (Clean) 79.7 57.1 20 19 49.7 Waiting list
That incremental cabinet is in the build stage and is due to be completed within the next 5 months. Interestingly last week’s report didn’t show that cabinet as full, but cabinets 6 and 8 are full.
https://www.btwholesale.com/includes/adsl/adsl.htm?s_cid=ws_furls_adslchecker
says 6 is available and 8 with waiting list.
BT Update is just a distraction to this thread
I’m not sure where the Openreach spokesperson got there percentage figures from, but they don’t reflect true life figures. I wish it was the case that 14% could get full fibre, but reality is less than 1%.
Also when did 98% + 1% = 100% ? I think they left out 1% and what do they get in regards to internet.
@JAFS
There [sic] figures (14% of Milton Keynes premises can get “full fibre”) seem to match those on Think Broadband, what’s your source? Or is it just your opinion that the TBB numbers are completely wrong?
And why should 98% Superfast + 1% under 10Mbps equal 100%.? What about those able to get more than 10Mbps but less than 24Mbps?
@New_Londoner As I work in Milton Keynes I do know the actual real life situation rather than just a set of figures. I do network installs for residential and comercial, so I do know what kind of internet connections are available for each estate.
I get many complaints by people who have just moved into Milton Keynes because often they can only get slow speeds. In many ways BT should not have been forced to sell their network in Milton Keynes in the 90’s (which they had to give away for next to nothing to NTL)
BT did not sell their network to ntl. ntl leased it, BT owned and maintained it. This arrangement is why MK doesn’t have cable now – VM didn’t own the network to upgrade it and couldn’t come to an agreement with BT so it is now switched off.
FTTP availability in Milton Keynes unitary authority is a fair bit above 1%. It’s between 13% and 14%. It is, however, focused in a few clusters.
@CarlT Not sure your source of information is from about BT’s old cable network, but it is incorrect. BT was forced to sell the network to NTL because BT wanted to upgrade the network to a full fibre network, but at the time was not allowed to have a full fibre network. At the time I was working at BT’s training centre in Kents Hill at Milton Keynes and was fully aware of the situation as there were many presentations I had to sit through about the subjet.
Figures may show 14%, but as previously said, it’s no where near that high in reality. I believe this month a few buildings which contain flats are going over to FTTP at the Hub, but even that won’t make much differece to the percentage.
Nope, not the case. VM have never owned the Milton Keynes network, they purchased a lease. They’ve actually been looking at building a brand new FTTP network in MK from scratch precisely because they don’t own the existing MK CATV network in full. Had they owned the ducts they’d have been in a position to overbuild with full fibre.
The original VM plan was to upgrade the amplifiers and push deeper fibre to allow for broadband and 2-way operation as they did in a number of other places nationwide. Unfortunately the demarcation between where VM were responsible for the plant and BT were responsible for it meant VM required BT’s agreement and co-operation which were not forthcoming.
BT had the cable TV franchise taken from them as part of Cable and Broadcast Act and subsequent liberalisation of the cable TV market in the UK I believe. They were not permitted to own a cable TV franchise so had to dispose of it. As far as I understand it VM were interested in purchasing the network outright but the price wasn’t acceptable. I’m not sure under what terms or conditions ntl came to lease rather than purchase it.
The Milton Keynes CATV/MATV network was switched off in the early 2010s due to an inability to transport digital TV and the analogue switchoff.
I actually thought VM would be building in MK already. That said, the ongoing flirtation between Liberty Global and Vodafone alongside this news makes that less likely.
So people say “Figures may show 14%, but as previously said, it’s no where near that high in reality” and is precisely why there is a REPORTING CORRECTIONS section on https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/E06000042 and other pages with the stats on them.
It is also why the data set is searchable so people can see what we hold for each postcode.
@CarlT I wasn’t talking about VM. Virgin Media did not acquire all of NTL’s assets. Hence there was a dispute later on ownership as neither BT or Virgin Media could have physical access to the network in order to upgrade it
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/04/04/bt-and-virgin-media-dispute-holds-back-faster-broadband-and-tv-in-milton-keynes-uk.html
@Andrew I have noticed that on your website you have on the availability “Fibre (eg FTTC/VDSL2/FTTH/Cable/G.Fast)” Does that also get counted in the percentage for full fibre as you’ve got FTTH or is that a separate figure?
Its a major surprise but only fibre to the home, fibre to the building is counted in the full fibre figure
Umm Virgin Media is the merger between ntl and Telewest, in full, with Virgin Mobile being purchased by ntl:Telewest along with the rights to change the name of the company to Virgin Media.
Virgin Media didn’t acquire anything from ntl it *is* ntl, plus Telewest, and obviously had the lease as they were delivering services down the leased network.
All assets, including the lease on the MK network, transferred to the new entity. The upgrade issues as mentioned were due to inability to get a deal with BT. ntl tried it before merger with Telewest, VM tried again after.
Regarding the ISPR link you posted is this quote from VM.
A VirginMedia Spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk:
“Virgin Media provides services in Milton Keynes over a network owned and maintained by BT.
Over a network owned and maintained by BT.
Hence a commercial agreement with BT was needed to get the upgrades done. This sadly didn’t happen.
@CarlT It shows that you have no knowledge of what took place. Even the article says that there was a dispute over ownership. I even saw the documents myself that clearly showed that NTL did in fact buy the network freehold and not leasehold. To this day the network is left to rot because of all this, I always wonder how different the internet would be in this country if BT had been allowed to build a true fibre network at that time.
NTL never bought the freehold.
http://investors.virginmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=135485&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2FwaS50ZW5rd2l6YXJkLmNvbS9maWxpbmcueG1sP2lwYWdlPTEwMzQ0NjYmRFNFUT0xJlNFUT02JlNRREVTQz1TRUNUSU9OX1BBR0UmZXhwPSZzdWJzaWQ9NTc%3D
We lease the networks from British Telecommunications on a long term basis for an annual lease payment of approximately L3.9 million (approximately $6.4 million).
@AndyH I would have thought by now you would have picked up on the fact that Virgin Media say one thing and BT say another. Virgin Media might say they leased it, but in fact BT are right and they purchased the freehold. This argument between the two companies has now left a perfectly good network to rot.
I’m not sure why you are trying to argue with someone who was there at the time and knows a lot more about the situation and the fact you keep making a fool of yourself by posting comments which clearly shows that you haven’t got a clue about Milton Keynes (In other words you have just read a few websites and think you know things).
I don’t find it believable that some random who now installs broadband / LANs in homes and networks would be shown such legal documents. These are nothing to do with engineering groups, they only need to know demarcations and responsibilities, that stuff is for lawyers.
The idea that a publicly listed company would commit fraud in documents legally required to be accurate to the best of their knowledge over something as minor as whether the MK network were leased or owned is insane.
Can you show where BT said they purchased the freehold?
Perhaps you could also explain why residents in Milton Keynes (of which I am one) received a letter from Virgin Media back in 2012 stating that they had not been able to agree to renew the lease of the network and that their cable service would be switched off in 2013?
@AndyH It shows that you didn’t even bother to read the link that I previously supplied (Which on the first line reads “A long running cable network ownership dispute”)
Virgin Media had trouble trying to get a new lease because of the dispute over ownership (i.e. It would not be legal if they got a lease from a company who didn’t own it).
That’s complete nonsense.
BT owned the physical network in Milton Keynes and leased it NTL/Virgin Media.
The dispute between BT and Virgin Media was surrounding upgrades to the network, which were under the terms of the lease mainly the responsibility of BT. At a time when BT (Openreach) was building its FTTP network in Milton Keynes, it made no sense for them to build or allow Virgin Media to build a rival network.
“Virgin Media was keen to emphasise that subscribers to the cable system operated in Milton Keynes would not experience
any reduction in service at the point of Digital Switchover.
However, the terms of the company’s lease of the cable network (from BT) currently prevent it from upgrading the capacity to provide a full digital TV and broadband service.
The Council needed to continue its efforts to promote a sensible agreement between these rival companies. ”
“BT still owns the cable but it was leased to NTL as part of a wider strategy to put an end to BT’s monopoly. NTL merged with TeleWest last year and with Virgin Media earlier this year.
It is understood that the present lease runs out at around the same time as the switch-over takes effect in this area. This has led to a degree of uncertainty over whose responsibility it is to invest in the network. At present MKC is not privy to the details of the contractual arrangements.”
@AndyH Having spoken to my contacts at VM at length about this subject, they have confirmed that they do not and have not at any time leased the cable network in Milton Keynes. The only lease they currently have with BT is with equipment in the telephone exchanges in Milton Keynes in order to provide ADSL to customers
A bit of research:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/04/04/bt-and-virgin-media-dispute-holds-back-faster-broadband-and-tv-in-milton-keynes-uk.html
@TheFacts Thank you, I have already posted that link in the discussion, but has fallen on deaf ears.
@ JustAnotherFileServer
I have no idea who your contacts are, however representatives from Virgin Media were present at Milton Keynes Council Select Committee meetings in July 2010 and January 2011. On both occasions, they stated that Virgin Media leased the network from BT.
In addition, perhaps you could mention why NTL published the following in their accounts:
Lease Agreement dated 18 July 1999 between (1) Broadband Ventures Limited and (2) NTL Milton Keynes Limited (Milton Keynes Cable TV Network);
and why Broadband Ventures Limited states in its account that “the company provides a television network to operators in Milton Keynes”
@AndyH Please lean to read things before posting. If you had then you would have read that it’s not in any of NTL’s accounts, in fact it’s listed in Virgin Media’s investors section as “INDEBTEDNESS” which means there is still money that is owed (i.e. because it was never transferred over to Virgin Media and is still contested).
“If you had then you would have read that it’s not in any of NTL’s accounts, ”
Well, I took it from NTL’s filed accounts as an annex – https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/906347/000110465904010634/a04-4579_1ex99d1.htm
“fact it’s listed in Virgin Media’s investors section as “INDEBTEDNESS” which means there is still money that is owed (i.e. because it was never transferred over to Virgin Media and is still contested).”
You realise that Virgin Media never acquired NTL and that it was a simple name change?
Clearly you don’t understand what the term “existing financial indebtness”. Perhaps you should look at the notes, where it states that one of the elements of existing financial indebtness is “the amount of any liability in respect of any lease”.
So let’s put this into perspective:
– Virgin Media stated in their accounts they leased the Milton Keynes network
– Virgin Media stated publicly in press releases that they leased the Milton Keynes network
– Virgin Media stated to council officials that they leased the Milton Keynes network
– BT’s subsidiary states that it leased the Milton Keynes network to another operator
– NTL’s accounts show a lease agreement with a BT subsidiary for the Milton Keynes network
– Virgin Media told customers in Milton Keynes that it had been unable to agree the renewal of the lease
Then there’s you – someone who claims that NTL did in fact buy the network because you’ve claimed to see some secret documents….
@AndyH You keep reading things and not understanding them (just bear basic things, which puts a lot of doubt that you could have understood anything at a council meeting that two reps from VM attended).
No where in the documents you have provided does it say that either NTL or Virgin Media leased the cable network from BT. The only reference there is in regards to the archived link you have provided is a comment (no details included, so you jumped to conclusions) regarding the license agreement, this was just so that if they wanted to they could use the names “MK TV” and “MK Cable” and I believe when BT had the network they used the name “BT Cable”.
Please stop reading things which say 1+1 and jumping to conclusion that it equals 5. Clearly you don’t understand a word of what you are reading.
Morning.
I’ve been directed to some of the comments posted here to clarify matters.
I’ve worked at Milton Keynes Council for 20 years in various roles, with most of them being in corporate strategy and development. I was heavily involved in negotiations with executives from BT and Virgin Media surrounding the cable television network in Milton Keynes.
In the early 1990s, the Government passed legislation that meant BT lost their licenses to run cable television networks. BT tried, unsuccessfully, to sell the physical network in Milton Keynes. As a result of being unable to sell the network, BT created a subsidiary entity that would lease the cable television franchise in Milton Keynes.
NTL leased the cable television network from the BT subsidiary for a period of 13 years. Unfortunately, one of the problems with the lease was that they were unable to upgrade the network to support future services. Responsibility for network upgrades remained with BT.
When NTL/Telewest were rebranded as Virgin Media, there were many negotiations surrounding the lease in Milton Keynes. Unfortunately, Virgin Media could not conclude a commercial agreement with BT that would have allowed them to provide the necessary upgrades to support digital television and broadband services.
Virgin Media took the strategic decision to not renew their lease agreement for cable television network in Milton Keynes. This was understandable given that Virgin Media did not want to run what was essentially an analogue network in Milton Keynes.
What AndyH has said is completely correct. Neither NTL, nor Virgin Media ever owned the cable television network in Milton Keynes. Ownership has always been with BT, under an agreement with the Milton Keynes Development Corporation. The dispute between BT and Virgin Media was surrounding the terms of the lease, namely network upgrades.
If there was ever a dispute over ownership, this would have resulted in legal action. I can assure people here that, having dealt with high level executives from both companies for many years, ownership was never disputed.
Thank you, Geoff.
JAFS I have no idea who you claim to have spoken to in Virgin Media or even if you spoke with anyone but if that’s what they told you they were mistaken. The difficulties with the cable network there were such that we were looking at wireless distribution of broadband, DOCSIS over the airwaves.
I say ‘we’ because I worked on a small part of that trial. It was done in MK and Wandsworth. I’m not going to claim to have seen legal documents, I’m an engineering monkey, I just saw us not upgrading MK because it didn’t belong to us and using wireless instead.
I find myself wondering if you’re one of the MKBAG crew. The same ones who were all mystified as to why they were struggling to make progress with BT but thought it fine for one of them to swear and throw tantrums at a senior director there.
You guys received a hell of a lot more time and investment than pretty much anywhere else in the country from BT and many of you had nothing to do other than moan. I had to spend a year working on Openreach to get a single cabinet passed and that cabinet has already returned its investment to Openreach through selling a Huawei 288 in full and having the second one upgraded to 384 lines to keep up with demand.
Either way, congratulations on the City Fibre deployment though I’m sure you’ll find something to complain about with that as well.
@Carl Thomas I will give you a brief description of my history with the subject (which should be more acurate information than someone from the Council who wasn’t even in Milton Keynes at the time).
I started working with MK Cable back in the days when the Sky channel only broadcasted in German (Yes that’s how long I’ve been involved with it) and when you could get free cable by using a Grundig TV (as it could tune above channel 69)
When BT aquired the Cable network I was then transfered over to BT. I have not at any period of time been involved in any activist groups.
It seems nowadays I’m in a minority as there is not many people left who was there in the beginning to the end (like me)
There is so much misinformating on this subjet that the only people that know the correct information are the people who were involved. It’s a great shame that this ground breaking network (at the time) has been left to rot.
Now we have the internet these days, so it’s easier for information to be recorded, so that any future networks can be documented without having to rely of 3rd or 4th hand information.
@Carl Thomas Also next time you want to pose as someone else, make sure that when you’ve cleared off your cookies you stick to the same name afterwards (dead giveaway) i.e. CarlT before posting as Geoff and then Carl Thomas after. Also when you post online it gives out your IP Address (which just so happens to be the same on both posts)
Are we not getting confused by the ownership of the ducts and what is in them being hisotircally distinct in MK?
I though the nexus of the argument was that BT sold the copper/fibre but leased the duct use very restrictively.
A strange arrangement I will agree.
But it does make sense as we all know that building the ducts is expensive and BT seem to have correctly surmised that they were an asset of great future value. And also the POTS wiring was mostly in the same ducts anyway. So selling them would have been illogical.
Therefore when VM/NTL wanted to upgrade, BT said no fiddling width our ducts and shot the thing down. It would have required different chambers and some added ducts to powered cabs.
I think the bigger issue is that it totally killed duct share/infrastructure share between BT and VM as neither trusted the other to stick to the spirit of an agreement.
@JustAnotherFileServer
“@Carl Thomas Also next time you want to pose as someone else, make sure that when you’ve cleared off your cookies you stick to the same name afterwards (dead giveaway) i.e. CarlT before posting as Geoff and then Carl Thomas after. Also when you post online it gives out your IP Address (which just so happens to be the same on both posts)”
Unless you’re confessing to have committed a cybercrime against this website, which does not appear to be the case as yet (Geoff is definitely not Carl), then I should point out that public comments do not display poster IP addresses and anonymous comments don’t use cookies (unless somebody has a Gravatar or member account and most don’t).
‘@Carl Thomas Also next time you want to pose as someone else, make sure that when you’ve cleared off your cookies you stick to the same name afterwards (dead giveaway) i.e. CarlT before posting as Geoff and then Carl Thomas after. Also when you post online it gives out your IP Address (which just so happens to be the same on both posts)’
1) Only administrators of this website can see IP addresses of comments, they aren’t given out to all and sundry. By claiming to have seen them you’re claiming to have compromised this website, or that those running the website provided you the information.
2) The anonymous comments don’t use cookies.
3) The CarlT / Carl Thomas comments were made on 2 different machines, hence the name change. Different auto-fill.
4) If you did have access to the IP addresses you’d know I most definitely did not post from the same one as Geoff.
You are lying twice – once claiming to have access to the IP addresses and again in claiming Geoff and myself are the same person.
Kudos. To simply claim that we’re the same is one thing, to claim to have evidence is a step beyond on the trolling / BS scale, though claiming to have committed a crime in the process, or that others have behaved unlawfully, is perhaps not such a good idea. Well played both on this one and throughout, though that’s my time wasting limit reached. Have a good week.
justanother more disinformation as ever significantly o FTTP in Bradwell an number of thousands of premises which have been FTTP for now a number of years
@Fastman Sorry but you are the one giving out disinfo. Check out the link which shows typical speeds in Bradwell (No FTTP)
https://imgur.com/a/4PUcS
He’s referring to the Bradwell Abbey exchange. That was the exchange area of one of the biggest trial deployments.
@CarlT It shows that neither of you two know anything about Milton Keynes as the Bradwell Abbey exchange is no where near Bradwell and he did say “in Bradwell” and even if it was the case that it was Bradwell Abbey, not many properties were changed over to FTTP on the trial and in fact some of the flats at campbell park that were used on the trial were converted back to copper lines after the trial.
He used it, perhaps ill-advisedly, as a contraction. Bradwell Abbey, the main MK exchange, was home to one of the original trials.
You seem desperate because you’re local to claim that everyone who isn’t is either lying or has no idea what they’re talking about regardless of the publicly available data and evidence. Whatever does it for you.
Just FYI nowhere was ‘switched over’ to fibre. The copper was always left in place and people could move to it at their convenience. That was required by Ofcom. I have no idea of the specifics of very small areas however the claim that 1% of MK is passed by FTTP is demonstrably wrong, whether the person making the claim lives in Milton Keynes, Birmingham or Moscow.
@CarlT It shows yet again that your knowledge of Milton Keynes is very limited as the Bradwell Abbey exchange is not the main exchange for Milton Keynes, yes it’s one of them including Shenley, Wolverton, Bletchley(Fenny Stratford)
Somehow you’ve got it in your head and I don’t know where from that Bradwell Abbey has got all this FTTP where is reality the exchange only covers a few estates in Milton Keynes and a very small area of those has got FTTP. If you could show me official BT records that has above 1% for FTTP then fair enough I can look into getting those figures corrected, thank you.
Err, yes, Bradwell Abbey is the primary exchange in Milton Keynes and indeed is a POP.
‘the exchange only covers a few estates in Milton Keynes’
Ya. I suppose BT Wholesale / Openreach data is wrong because whoever compiled it might not live in MK, right?
https://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/codelook.htm?xid=990811&cabinets=10695
You’ve claimed everyone else’s data is wrong and your evidence is some anecdotes and claims of insider knowledge. It’s all some massive conspiracy against Milton Keynes, right? I recall that being quite a running theme in the early part of the decade.
@ JustAnotherFileServer
Bradwell Abbey covers some 30,000 premises in Milton Keynes with around 140 cabinets in more than 30 ‘estates’.
The original FTTP trial back in 2009/10 covered 41 cabinet areas and around 12,000 premises. This has now been expanded quite substantially (nearly 17,000 THP as of 18 Jan 2018) with developments like Oakgrove (and surrounding areas) where there are more than 3,000 premises that have or will be getting FTTP once the homes/flats have been built.
It seems to me that you keep making statements that are completely wrong and lack any substantiation.
@AndyH The Bradwell Abbey exchange covers around 28 thousand properties, but only a small percentage of theose are FTTP. Also 28 thousand properties is a not even a large amount considering the total amount of properties that is covered by Milton Keynes (Which is much larger than central London)
https://i.imgur.com/FXJj7Gl.png
Like Andrew, I’m done with you on here. It’s a waste of time arguing with someone that know better than everyone else.
AndyH Well that’s what happens when you rely on 3rd party websites that aren’t offical information souces to back up your information. I’v been saying all along if you can post offical information direct from BT and not from a 3rd party then fair enough then we can get somewhere on fixing this error.
I get all my information direct from BT and have posted all from BT’s websites to show that it’s their information. I can’t be held responsible for what a 3rd party has on it’s website (considering it’s not BT)
That you don’t recognise the image that Andy posted shows how directly from BT your information is – your idea of direct is putting a few addresses into the availability checker then extrapolating.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You have no evidence beyond anecdote to support your claims because they are essentially baseless, yet strawman and demand an entirely different level of evidence from everyone else. The one talent you’ve shown is to get a bunch of people who have a clue and evidence to entertain what is either a psychological problem or simple trolling so if it’s the second of those well done, if it’s the first my sympathies.
@CarlT Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility. At least people may look at this in the future when pointing fingers at someone posting as multiple people because now we now who it is Carl Thomas.
I can’t wait for this roll out and hope all goes well. I live in furzton MK4 and get decent speeds at 76mbps but for me being a tech head and gamer more is excellent news
I wish I could get even half of 76Mbps. Can I send my 11 year old son over to your house? Apparently our broadband speeds are ruining his life.
How times and expectations of speed change eh, I remember using a 2400 baud modem via a PCMCIA card back when i was at school!
I’m showing my age… we had no internet when I was at school! Can’t bear to admit this to my son. lol
Well, I live in the new Western Expansion area (MK8) of MK and get 2MB on a great day, which the only option of Community Fibre as an arrangement.
*with the only option, i mean.
Ben, I know some of the new developments at Kiln Farm have got terrible speeds
I’m not that far from you Ben – mines double the speed though!!! I get a whole 4Mbps – occasionally hitting 4.1Mbps… are you jealous? 😉
Ben if you can advise what development you are on I will see what the situation is –I would suggest that Kin Fields might be a mix of developers where some went for FTTP and some went for copper I have looked at at Barratts (Fairfield) Mk11 4 as that seemed to have been EO of Wolverton but some addresses now seem to have FTTP available (as I indicated previously this is a continuing moving feast and more FTTP is being done and will continue to be done which is consistent with the external meesages coming out publically from Openreach
@Fastman I don’t think anyone is going to accept your information as being correct as you don’t even know the name of the area in Milton Keynes and there is no such place as Kin Fields in Milton Keynes. You might think you know things, but you don’t
actually it it should be kiln fields but the information is correct
@Fastman Not in Milton Keynes there isn’t
Try Kiln Farm where Cityfibre are digging next month.
ben what cab and area
Might be better if you selected the reply button when replying to people rather than making a new comment so that the person knows you are replying to them. Noticed you didn’t reply to my comment though hahaha
Whatever the BT statistic, this is amazing news for MK. Finally a couple of not insignificant companies – capable of doing this really well by all accounts – working together to bring at least one town the network everyone in the UK deserves. MK residents (like me) need to be supporting this. Having choice is every bit as important as having high bandwidths in my opinion (although I want both NOW). It will be refreshing to embrace something new and see where it takes our town in the future!
Also meant to add… does anyone really believe that a cash king company like Vodafone (who operate their own networks in plenty of places globally) hasn’t done due diligence with City Fibre on whether there is enough demand for better services in MK. And it’s not like City Fibre hasn’t been providing services for businesses using the network for some time now. I’ll wager that with their geographic focus they already know MK better than anyone sat in the ivory town at BT HQ!
I think there is plenty of demand for it in MK, I know plenty of people that have low speeds and would love to have good speeds let alone high speeds.
It is going to be intriguing to see how this is rolled out across MK.
Cityfibre have a large network around the shopping centre and main business district which could be expanded into the neighbouring residential areas quickly. I also believe that they have several network access points in the various business parks scattered throughout MK so again a logical starting point. So a few areas for a quick win and to generate the local publicity to get paying customers on board quickly.
Will just have to keep an eye on roadworks.org to see when they put in notices for works in the future.
Oh and wait for Vodafone to get in touch as I’ve expressed an interest in the proposed service.
Most of the business parks already have decent broadband coverage either from Openreach or WarwickNet (FTTC/P). I believe ‘the Hub’ already has business FTTP from Cityfibre, but I have no idea how successful that has been.
One of the main issues with Openreach’s FTTP residential uptake in Milton Keynes has been the fact that only BT Retail sell it as a full-launched product. Unless you are clued up about this (which your average consumer won’t be), then you will be stuck on ADSL speeds with providers like Sky and TalkTalk who tell you that fibre broadband is not available in your area. If Vodafone/Cityfibre are keen to sell their service, they will have to do a lot of advertising and promotion at local level.
@AndyH BT Retail are not the only FTTP residential providers for Milton Keynes, Hyperoptic and others also cover Milton Keynes.
BT Retail are the only main provider that sells Openreach’s FTTP, which has the largest THP in Milton Keynes.
@AndyH I’m just pointing out that in Milton Keynes as this article shows that Openreach is not the be all and end all when it comes to FTTP and at least other companies are at least trying to get a full network rather than the small percentage that Openreach have in Milton Keynes.
Oh Vodafone sales have been in touch and will call again when they are ready to sell FTTP. No date or more information given.
I am excited by this news! Open Reach have been a disgrace! they flatly refuse to connect me to the fibre network. I live in Kents Hill, Milton Keynes. Every website checker and provider say I can be connected!
Please come quickly Vodaphone!
just another file server — its seem pointless trying to have a conversation on this openreach has significant FTTP in Milton Keynes (as in SMBA/SMSU/SMBT/SMNP/SMWV/SMSSF (both in terms of any one operators and also in terms of FTTP by Openreach compared to other cities / conurbations (as Milton keynes is really around 6 / 7 exchanges as I recall as area which is increasing with new build all the time (majority is getting FTTP) and would expect that to increase significantly in the coming days and may actually increased in the last 6 months or so
@Fastman Please provide information regarding all these new build areas that you think are getting FTTP, because as shown on this article some people that are locals that live in the new build areas don’t in fact have FTTP. So please post official BT information on this. I have asked other people to do the same yesterday, but they have mysteriously gone quiet (I wonder why, because they can’t provide proof).
@Fastman Also, it’s very difficult to have a conversation with you as you keep making new comments instead of replying (Which I did pull you up on yesterday, but still you insist on being awkward). I get the impression you are like it in real life (correct me if I’m wrong).
Just you know nothing about me in real life or what I do so don’t make assumption about me all new build registered with Openreach post Feb 2016 with an 9 months first Occupancy date from registration and greater than 30 plots get FTTP !!!!! any thing registered pre 2016 wont have FTTP and may only have copper as the developer asked for copper — there is extensive work ongoing around new build that deals with Developments in both of these scenarios — so which developments are you acutally referring to -as it its not FTTP that will have been the ask was for Copper lines
I take it you are replying to me? If that’s the case then I’m refereeing to “ALL” new developments in Milton Keynes. As you think that all should be FTTP as from Feb 2016 then please supply all official documentation showing each development name and when they went live with FTTP. If you can’t supply this information or argue any further it will show you’re just a fake and a fraud (which I’m sure by now we already know that)
just you clearly did not read the post or if you did you chose to ignore the facts in it — Developer registered post Feb 2016 with an 9 months first Occupancy date from registration date and greater than 30 plots (that means first occupancy around late 2016 and early 2017 depending on when they registered with Openreach should have FTTP for the those phases that are consistent with the statement above (sites registered before that date or which had shorter first occupancy dates (ie less than 9 months are likely not to have FTTP and will have copper only) so some developments might have copper for Phase 1 then FTTP for Phase 2 etc. (that’s now quite common) in terms of your view of me you can think what you like and I not bothered either way – but I can assure you I am neither fake nor fraud as a number on here can verify should they choose to
All I asked is can you supply me with official documentation which shows each development name in Milton Keynes which has FTTP. I take it the answer is no then?
I haven’t seen anyone coming to your rescue regarding this topic and all the other fakes that have argued on this matter don’t seem to want to confirm or deny you are real.
btw I never make assumptions, I always do my research and gather all facts before making any statement. I do also comment on observations, so by you not supplying any information to back your self up then I don’t need to assume anything do I?
So if you never make assumptions I look forward to a slew of corrections in my inbox reducing my 14% of full fibre in Milton Keynes down to the less than 1% you have clearly have the data for if you do not make assumptions.
On the data I have 0.9% towards the 14.3% is IFNL or Hyperoptic
@Andrew Ferguson I would have thought that a website that offers availability for a service would get their information direct from the source (via API’s) rather than relying on 3rd party speed tests and corrections?
I’m not trying to put your website down in anyway, it’s a valuable resource and a market leader in it’s field (which is why I would have thought that BT would allow you direct access to their availability information). It might be worth talking to them about it as it would help people to know what’s available not just for FTTP, but also for the G.fast deployment of the pods.
Ofcom are the ones using the data from the providers, we went down the construct a model that now is a good mirror of the Openreach and other networks, our data lines up with Ofcom to a reasonable degree of confidence.
I can see errors in Ofcom data (which is from providers) and where I see them in ours they are fixed asap.
Why this time intensive route? Because people do not have the trust in the BT figures, and I presumed as you dispute the 14% full fibre in Milton Keynes that you would have some useful data to help me correct, but sorry I was mistaken.
People can complain and walk away solving nothing, or complain and engage and improve things for others who follow.
@Andrew Ferguson I would have thought you would take your own advice and make sure that the “whole” of your data was correct and not just the Milton Keynes arae. This is why I’m not walking away as I would like to get all of your data corrected and not just Milton Keynes. Would this be possible?
I also believe that a disclaimer on your website would be a good idea so that people who visit your website are not mistaken into thinking it’s official data. I’m sure someone buying a property who checked on your website would be most un-happy if they discovered that it was wrong and then discover that it wasn’t offical data.
Random example – MK10 9DP
WBC FTTP Up to 330 Up to 50 — Available 2 Stage
@TheFacts Also another example just less than 100 meters from your example: https://imgur.com/a/z9JIZ
Your point is? TBB map shows FTTP availability.
@TheFacts My point is that you can’t say that an area has blanket coverage solely on just one postcode, one house in a post code might have it, but the rest of the estate and surrounding areas don’t.
As regards to the data on the TBB website, Andrew has already confirmed that the data is not official and is only drawn from speedtests.
Example of flaw in map data: What if someone did a speedtest at home on their laptop and used their home postcode, then later took their laptop to work (who had a very fast internet connection) but they did not clear their cookies, it would mean that the fast speed test would show up as being from the home postcode and therefore would disstort the speedtest data.
@JAFS – can I suggest you check a property in every postcode shown as having FTTP in the TBB map for Milton Keynes.
@TheFacts May I sugest you pay me then? I have already checked many and have found discrepancies. Generally it’s down to the website owners to make sure their data is correct. It’s fine to expect the general user to submit the odd correction, but when it’s the whole dataset then that should be down to the website owners (unless of course they want to pay someone to do it for them).
Andrew Ferguson confirmed nothing of the sort with regards to his data being from speed tests and indeed he wouldn’t confirm it because it is not the case.
@JAFS – please give details of some of the errors.
@JustAnotherFileServer On the speed tests you are incorrect, the coverage data is not derived from the speed test results, is that statement simple enough to make it clear?
The labs.thinkbroadband.com/local site presents % coverage data and also the observed quarterly results from speed tests, two different data sets.
@Andrew Ferguson I did ask you clearly if the coverage data was from offical data and you confirmed it wasn’t. So either it is or it isn’t, please make your mind up. Also I did ask you if the data could be obtained from offical coverage data and you said that you had looked at doing that, but decided not to.
This is a clear case of misleading visitors to a website (as there is no indication where the data is coming from)
JustAnotherFileServer
I explain something and you spin it around, so that is me out of here.
Happy to engage with people who will actually talk sensibly but when you come across someone who finds fault in everything or just plays games then there comes a point when one gives up. Should have done this earlier.
@Andrew Ferguson Thanks anyways for your input on this matter.
in light of my response above the first question if I lived on a new build estate that was copper (ie a new pcp at the entrance to the site probably) was when they when did you register your site with openreach and what did you ask for
??????????????????????? I wish I could see you in person so what I could teach you how to press the Reply button
got better things to do frankly and this is last word on this matter but please explain why would any one provide you with a list of FTTP sites (that are absolutely nothing to do with you) the answer is they would not !!!! I have provided a clear view on how a site might be FTTP or copper or how a part site might be a mix of copper (phase 1) or FTTP (phase 2) or what a resident on a new build registered with openreach for phase 1 pre 2016 might want to ask their developer
In general if you want to make bold claims then normally you provide evidence to back up your claims. You came along into the discussion on this article like you were Mr KnowItAll, but then when it came to back up this so called knowledge you just agued and now refuse to justify yourself. Maybe next time think and do re-search before posting comments
@JAFS
You have made a bold claim, asserting that less than 1% of premises can connect to full fibre, not 14% as stated by Think Broadband and others. You also assert that you never make assumptions, always do thorough research.
Therefore please can you publish the detailed information you have that shows the 14% claim to be wrong and your 1% claim to be correct. I’m sceptical that you can do this but am happy to be proved wrong.
@New_Londoner I’m in talks with BT on Wednesday and Thursday of this week with the goal of creating a new website that will publish the full and correct official information as Andrew from Thinkbroadband is not interested on having accurate data on his website. Once this has been finalized and up and running I will post the link for everyone to use and see the difference.
The website will also make it clear where the data is coming so that people will have assurance that not only is it up to date but also accurate.
How was your meeting?
@JAFS
How’s your website coming on? Did BT or Openreach agree to provide you with information or simply refer you to their respective websites which already contain premise-level detail? I’d assume the latter but am curious.
All I do is provide new build homes around the uk with fttp. Shortly there will be word from OR that every major city is going full fibre. I believe they are almost a 1M prem past . I can’t remember visiting a new site within the past 18 months that did not have full fibre.
No I can’t provide any documentation.
That is all.
If you’re saying that the total number of FTTP is around 1M for the whole of the UK, then that would certainly back up the fact that Milton Keynes could not possibly have around 14% FTTP. It’s a pity you don’t have any documentation. Though a quick search on the internet shows that the average amount of new build homes is around 160,000 a year for the whole of the UK.
the 14% refers to the % of FTTP in MK against total premise in MK – there is no where it suggest that 14% of the Openreach UK FTTP is in MK
@Fastman What part of “Milton Keynes could not possibly have around 14% FTTP” didn’t you understand? I know you’ve now got the hang of the reply button and thank you for that, but now please learn to read the reply and comments correctly.
Hyperoptic are also in MK.
@TheFacts It might be a good idea for you to read all of the comments from the top as you might have read that I already posted about that the fact they only supply to a very small numner of flats in the main town centre called the Hub
And INFL around Fen St.
@TheFacts Interesting what information TTB website has on Fenny Stratford, it says NO to FTTC and FTTP: https://imgur.com/a/sFdRQ
lookoed at Tavistock st in fenny stratford which is MK2 2PF postcode has 80 m/bps FTTC off MILTON KEYNES 82 so not sure what premise you are looking — I wouls always go back to the Wholesale checker as that will have the latest updated including any recent network build bearing mind quite a significant number of premises went live at back end of the year nationally both at FTTC and FTTP level
so here’s a thing you either trust what Openreach have put out in Public statements sbout full fibre in MK area or you don’t — its clear that you don’t but you seem not to accept anything that differs to your opinion / view but that does not mean it is not true !!!!! — interesting comment from Geoff Snelson (about the Virgin / BT which you were so adamant about)
Can you supply these statements then? As I have asked you for proof and you said you would not supply any and that you would not waste your time anymore on this matter.
I’m currently using the data supplied by both Openreach and BT Wholesale compared to TTB’s data. There is too many differences between the offical data and that of TTB’s.
Examples please.
@TheFacts Yeah sure, £195.99 per example
Without some examples why should anyone believe you?
@TheFacts I have posted some examples, but strangely no one has posted anything that can back up the 14% claim. It’s not my website, so therefore it’s not my responsibility to check all the data. Can you post anything to back up the 14% claim?
Just a few points:
BT’s FTTP figures have been formally disputed a number of times over the years. The deployment isn’t complete for many postcodes – or wasn’t but the current figure could be right. MK Council did undertake a survey exercise and did manage to get the BT checker results changed for a good couple of thousand properties. This involved proving to Openreach where the gaps where. This then resulted in Openreach having to form a project to check all the information they held and undertake physical survey rework. In a number of cases they did have infrastructure issue but a lot where simply due to the back-end systems issue with the database that holds FTTP information as it is separate from the FTTC/ADSL checker. For a long time the checker results were unreliable – for example you could check in the morning and get FTTP then couldn’t in the afternoon. In a few cases we had people where the PON was outside their house and they couldn’t order and neither could 90% of properties in their postcode or nearby postcodes.
The main issue is the BT class a postcode having 1 FTTP deployable address as having FTTP. This has caused lots of problems in MK.
Both CityFibre and Vodafone operate fibre networks in Milton Keynes. Voda/Thus had a physical POP/DC in MK for a long time but that may have gone now. KCOM whilst not now owning the CityFibre network retain its use and have their own POP in the town which isn’t used by CityFibre. CityFibre instead use a carrier neutral facility – I would hope to see an expansion of CityFibre services in the carrier neutral facility.
Some (small parts) of the cable network is/was owned by Virgin. Only small parts. However, I never quite understood why. I wont comment on the ownership that’s been covered. I believe there were legal events that occurred but I’ll leave it at that as I don’t have all the information.
Also worth pointing out that the CATV network isn’t separate from the telephone network it is one in the same (inside estates anyway) and the architecture of the network for CATV isn’t the same as HFC. In some cases when leaving an housing estate the CATV backhaul (as such) network goes in a different direction to the telephone network as it was delivered from a central relay/transmission site not a local telephone exchange. I believe, the relay/transmission facility has been owned by a third operator for a number of years so BT didn’t really own much. I suspect by the end it was costing Virgin more to run than they got in revenue.
Gareth – most availability checking and coverage counting is done a premises level these days using UPRN or Deliverypoint information. Any postcode checker should have accuracy caveats on a splash screen for exactly the reason that a single postcode covers on average 12 houses in a residential scenario.
Have had a nightmare with Open Reach and getting connected. I live in Kent’s Hill and I think its cabinet 103.
if there is anyone technical that can help?
Open Reach will not do anything – so does this mean no connections left in local cabinet?
Geoff
Cabinet 103 on Bradwell Abbey Exchange
Vodafone will offer connection where https://www.ifnl.net have already deployed fibre and offering crappy service?
for example Brooklands Development in Milton Keynes currently 4 isp’s offering the same service of 300mbps down and 30mbps up with high latency and packet drop and inconsistent service.