Gigaclear and EE Examine World Cup Impact on UK Internet Traffic

Rural fibre optic broadband ISP Gigaclear has claimed that fever over the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia is turning into “white-hot rage over terrible internet connections.” Meanwhile mobile operator EE saw broadband usage “drop drastically” throughout all matches, while 4G mobile traffic did the opposite.

So far ISPreview.co.uk hasn’t really reported on the impact of the 2018 World Cup on UK internet traffic and the main reason for that is because there simply hasn’t been much to say. The majority of games, particularly those involving England, have generally taken place in the late afternoon (outside of work hours) or during the weekend and that means most people would rather watch it on a traditional TV than streamed online.

Official TV figures estimated that over 23.6 million Brits tuned in to watch England vs Colombia on ITV and only 3.3 million made use of the ITV Hub to stream it online. We have been asking ISPs to keep tabs on the event and so far none have reported much of a change above normal levels.

The above might also be partly because the bulk of people stream content in SD or HD quality and these days that isn’t really enough to tax the majority of networks (i.e. you only need a steady download speed of around 3-6Mbps for good HD). Local caching and Content Delivery Networks (CDN) are also very effective at managing demand on networks.

Given the above we weren’t surprised when EE today reported that fixed line broadband usage dropped “throughout all the World Cup games,” while usage on their 4G mobile network surged. This makes sense because those on a mobile are more likely to have been at work or travelling away from home, with no access to their home TV (some work networks may also block streaming).

In fact EE claims to have experienced their “lowest broadband demand for a year” during the thrilling game against Colombia, which saw England go through to the quarter finals on penalties (I still haven’t recovered from watching that). On the other hand mobile traffic went in the opposite direction.

Facebook demand increased throughout England’s match, with usage spiking at 188Gbps (Gigabits per second) on the EE network as Eric Dier slotted the winning penalty and fans took to social media to talk about it. EE further noted that all World Cup games produced a rise in demand on mobile (many of those non-England games were played during working hours), albeit still 3x less than when England was playing.

On the other hand rural broadband ISP Gigaclear appears to have spotted a different type of trend. The provider claims that “fans are being left infuriated by slow internet connections and the inability to access streaming platforms“.

According to Gigaclear, the number of complaints, on social media and internet forums, about slow connections or buffering in connection with the World Cup rose by 200% on the night of the England vs Tunisia game, and again by 420% during the Argentina vs Croatia game.

The ISP adds that there were also “endless frustrations over slow connections and buffering experienced” by those connecting to the BBC’s 4K ultra HD live stream via iPlayer, which in fairness was just a trial that only tens of thousands were able to try (here).

The fact that the best 4K quality required a stable 40Mbps download speed (such speeds are available to more than half of the UK but many don’t have a package that can handle it) probably didn’t help, although we suspect that the BBC’s network may have also been struggling because iPlayer would normally adapt to slower connections (i.e. automatically reducing the video quality) in order to remain stable.

Gigaclear Statement

However, it has to be said that some of this frustration will stem from the confusion around the terms ‘superfast’ and ‘ultrafast’ broadband, the historical advertisement of ‘up to’ speeds which often misled consumers, and confusion over part and full fibre broadband.

For viewers who are connected to full fibre broadband – the only service capable of ultrafast speeds – they are only limited by the package they choose rather than what speed the technology can supply. Unfortunately, only 4% of the UK has access to these connections. Other fans are having to rely on outdated part fibre connections that rely on ancient copper wires to deliver sub-par connections.

As the tournament has reached the final 16 matches, we don’t expect to see these problems disappear any time soon. In addition, now Wimbledon has commenced we wouldn’t be surprised if some tennis fans are encountering the same problems given recent concern.

To avoid disappointment and nationwide frustration, action needs to be taken by the industry and the government to fast-track the roll-out of full fibre broadband across the UK. Although it’s too late for fans this year, an accelerated roll-out process might just ensure enough wide-spread coverage of full fibre broadband to increase speeds in time for the Qatar World Cup in 2022.

Until then, it’s important consumers are armed with the right knowledge to allow them to fully understand the difference between full fibre (ultrafast) and part fibre (superfast) connections. To help, Gigaclear has created an infographic to guide them through the terms, as well as suggested questions they can ask their provider.

Sadly Gigaclear’s attempt to lay claim over “ultrafast” terminology, which they curiously say can only be delivered by “full fibre” (FTTP/H) lines, will do little to resolve existing confusion. Unlike “full fibre“, the term “ultrafast” is a general definition of service performance and not one that is or has ever been exclusively connected to a specific type of broadband technology.

The term “ultrafast” is usually associated with speeds of 100Mbps+ and meanwhile Ofcom prefer to uniquely define it as 300Mbps+. In both cases, Virgin Media’s hybrid fibre coax network is able to deliver those speeds and Openreach’s G.fast technology has also been designed to offer anything between 100-330Mbps. Even the best 4G and fixed wireless connections are able to reach such levels, to say nothing of future Gigabit capable 5G.

We perfectly understand the need to reclaim “fibre” terminology from hybrid / part fibre ISPs and agree with that, but “ultrafast” is NOT a fibre-only term.