Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

BDUK Superfast Broadband Take-up Progress by UK Region – Q4 2018

Wednesday, April 10th, 2019 (12:01 am) - Score 2,560
uk map england scotland wales northern ireland

The Government’s £1.7bn publicly funded Broadband Delivery UK scheme, which has so far helped to extend “superfast broadband” (24Mbps+) networks to 5,076,552 extra premises since 2013, has today published its latest take-up data to the end of 2018. The good news is it continues to grow and boost coverage.

The figures reflect the percentage of homes and businesses that have chosen to sign-up with a superfast broadband network (delivered via FTTC, FTTPfull fibre” or Fixed Wireless Access), specifically those which have been delivered via support from the BDUK programme (i.e. % subscribed of premises passed).

At present this data is split between the first two phases of the programme and some related phase 2 extension contracts. Phase 1 was broadly dominated by Openreach’s (BT) contracts, while the on-going Phase 2 contracts have attracted a mix of extension deals alongside BT and several alternative network providers.

BDUK Phases 1 (Finished Spring 2016)

Supported by £530m of public money via the Government (mostly extracted from a small slice of the BBC TV Licence fee), as well as significant match funding from local authorities and the EU. The public funding is then roughly matched by BT’s private investment. Overall it helped to extend “superfast broadband” (24Mbps+) services to cover 90% of homes and businesses in the United Kingdom.

BDUK Phase 2 (Technically on-going)

Supported by £250m of public money via the Government, as well as match funding from local authorities, Local Growth Deals and private investment from suppliers (e.g. BT, Gigaclear, Airband, Call Flow etc.). This phase extended superfast broadband services to 95% of premises in time for the end of 2017, although some contracts are on-going until c.2020 and will reach beyond 95%.

Crucially the BDUK contracts include a clawback (gainshare) clause, which requires the suppliers to return part of the public investment as customer adoption of the new service rises. The funding can then be reinvested to further improve network coverage and speeds via future deals. Efficiency savings from earlier contracts can also be reinvested.

So far it looks as if a total of around £721m could in theory be returned via clawback from BT and more than £210m (Jan 2018 figure) from efficiency savings, which may rise again in 2019 (details here and here). BDUK has estimated that this reinvestment might be enough to boost the UK coverage of fixed line superfast broadband networks to around 97% by March 2020 (possibly 98%+ after that), but this is not an official target.

bduk impact march 2019

NOTE: Many of the remaining BDUK linked contracts are now focused on deploying ultrafast “full fibreFTTP.

BDUK Phase 1 Take-up (Average %)

The following tables break the take-up data down by each BDUK local authority (project area) and devolved region (Scotland, Wales etc.), although for the proper context these percentages should ideally be considered alongside the most recent premises passed (network coverage) data, which can be seen at the bottom of this article. Overall 55.25% of premises have adopted the new service (up from 52.4% in September 2018).

NOTE: Some of the counties have divided their deployments into separate contracts. For example, Phase One in Shropshire doesn’t include the ‘Telford and Wrekin‘ area because that is part of a separate Phase Two contract inside the same county. On top of that the contracts were all signed at different times and so are at different stages of development.

Project Area (BDUK Phase 1) Uptake % (Jun 2018) Uptake % (Sep 2018) Uptake % (Dec 2018)
Berkshire Councils 56.4 58.6 61.2
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire 58.2 60.8 63.6
Cambridgeshire, Peterborough 53.6 56 58.4
Central Beds, Bedford Borough, Milton Keynes 57.4 60.2 63.2
Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester, Warrington, Halton 55 57.9 60.9
Devon & Somerset (including, Plymouth, Torbay, North Somerset, Bath & NE Somerset) 49 51.7 54.7
Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire 56.4 59.8 63.1
Cumbria 49.7 52.4 55.5
Derbyshire 47.4 50.1 53.3
Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole 49.1 51.8 54.7
Durham, Gateshead, Tees Valley and Sunderland 47.5 50.3 53.4
East Riding of Yorkshire 51.5 54.3 57.6
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 54.8 57.6 60.5
Essex, Southend-On-Sea, Thurrock 53.9 56.5 59.6
Greater Manchester 41.3 44.9 48.8
Hampshire 51.9 54.5 57.4
Herefordshire and Gloucestershire 49.5 52.2 54.9
Isle of Wight 46.2 49.4 52.6
Kent and Medway 52.7 55.3 58.3
Lancashire, Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen 45.9 48.5 51.6
Leicestershire 53.2 55.9 58.7
Lincolnshire 52.1 55.1 57.9
Merseyside 41 44 47.3
Newcastle upon Tyne 43.6 46.6 50.1
Norfolk 52 54.9 57.8
North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire 51.1 53.9 56.8
North Yorkshire 53.4 55.7 58.2
Northamptonshire 56.5 59.2 61.9
Northumberland 53.4 56 59.2
Nottinghamshire 52.9 55 57.6
Oxfordshire 56.1 58.6 61.6
Rutland 61.5 63 65.4
Shropshire 49.9 52.7 55.8
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent 49.3 52 54.9
Suffolk 54.1 56.7 59.6
Surrey 57.5 60 62.6
West Sussex 56.1 58.9 62
West Yorkshire 46.3 49 52.6
Wiltshire 54.8 57.3 60
South Gloucestershire 57.4 59.7 62.4
Worcestershire 53.9 57.4 60.3
Devolved Administrations
Highlands and Islands 47.6 50.7 54.4
Northern Ireland 50 50.3 64
Rest of Scotland 42.4 45.8 49.2
Wales 44.9 49.8 51.8

BDUK Phase 2 Take-up (Average %)

So far in this phase an overall total of 39.59% (up from 35.7% in September 2018) of premises have adopted the new service and some projects have yet to report. We note that a number of Phase 2 schemes also consist of more than one contract type and so you may see several figures being reported for certain areas in order to reflect each of those deals.

Project Area (BDUK Phase 2) Uptake % (Jun 2018) Uptake % (Sep 2018) Uptake % (Dec 2018)
Berkshire 22.9, 4, 1.9 23.7, 4.3, 6.4 24.9, 5.6, 15.1
Black Country 28.3 32.3 36.7
Bucks & Herts 31.4 34.4 39.7
Bedfordshire & Milton Keynes 32.6 37.3 40.8
Cambridgeshire no data no data no data
Cheshire 39.2 41.7 46.4
Cornwall 34, 3.6 39.1, 16.2 44.1, 19.8
Cumbria 29.3 34.7 38
Derbyshire 30.2 30.7 34.6
Devon & Somerset 9 10.1 10.1, 17.5
Dorset 34.7 40.3 47.2, 3.5
Durham 26.5 31 36.9
East Riding (Yorkshire) 42.9 44.6 49.3
East Sussex 49.1 51.1 52.1
Essex 34.2, 26.4 36.7, 27.7 40.2, 28.7, 9
Greater Manchester no data no data no data
Hampshire 30 33.8 38.1
Herefordshire & Gloucestershire 33.3 , 10 35, 10.7, 3.4 11.3, 4.8, 7.6, 0.2
Kent 39.8 43.5 50.1
Lancashire 31 35.6 37.6
Leicestershire 28.3 32.1 36.8
Lincolnshire 31.7 31.5 36.9
Norfolk 39.6 41.9 45.1
North Lincolnshire 29.6 33.7 38.9
North Yorkshire 49.5 52.9 56.4, 0.9
Northamptonshire 38.7 , 4.8 , 11.6 42.5, 8.9, 17.8 46.7, 10, 15.5
Northumberland 38.9 42.4 42.7
Nottinghamshire 37.7 40.8 42.4
Oxfordshire no data no data no data
Rutland no data no data no data
Shropshire 24.1 32.2 38.9, 2.2
South Gloucestershire 33 , 16.3 38.3, 31.6 44.2, 19.3
South Yorkshire 30.9 35.6 35.6
Staffordshire 35.3 37.8 39.7
Suffolk 38 41.6 45.6
Swindon 5.7 8.2 8.7
Telford & Wrekin 40.2 45.6 50.7
Warwickshire 40.2 40.8 40.7, 1.1
West Oxfordshire no data no data 7
West Sussex 40.1 41.7 47
West Yorkshire 30.4 33.1 37.2
Wiltshire 34.6 38.1 42.6, 0.6
Worcestershire 44.4 44.7 48.3
Devolved Administrations
Highlands and Islands no data no data no data
Northern Ireland 27.2 32.5 38.4
Rest of Scotland no data no data no data
Wales no data no data no data

IMPORTANT: Take-up is a dynamically scaled measurement, which means that at certain stages of the scheme it may go up or even down depending upon the pace of deployment (i.e. premises passed in any given time-scale), although over time the take-up should only rise.

Explained another way, earlier phases of the roll-out were easier and faster to deploy, so you could expect to see a bit of a yo-yo movement with the take-up % sometimes falling if lots of new areas were suddenly covered. Some contracts are also younger than others and will thus take time to catch-up. On top of that BDUK’s roll-out pace has slowed to a crawl as it reaches remote rural areas, which will give take-up a chance to climb.

A number of other factors can also impact take-up, such as the higher prices for related “fibre” services, as well as customers being locked into long contracts with their existing ISP (they can’t upgrade immediately) and a lack of general awareness (locals don’t always know that the faster service exists) or interest in the new connectivity (if you have a decent ADSL2+ speed and only basic needs then you might feel less inclined to upgrade).

The fear of switching to a different ISP may also obstruct some services. In other cases the new service may run out of capacity (i.e. demand is higher than expected), which means that people who want to upgrade are prevented from doing so until Openreach resolves the problem, although the scale of this issue is fairly small.

Now, for some context, here’s the latest progress report on related contracts for the same period (this excludes related match-funding from private investment).

Funding and Premises Passed Progress (BDUK Phase 1 + 2)

Total BDUK Contracted Funding Total Local Body Funding (Councils etc.) Total Contracted premises Delivered to Dec 2018
Bedford & Milton Keynes £8,130,000 £9,443,694 56,269 48,905
Berkshire £5,153,017 £4,603,250 43,723 29,849
Black Country £2,988,349 £2,988,349 39,109 37,350
Bucks & Herts £10,837,000 £11,415,000 94,428 83,085
Cambridgeshire £8,250,000 £17,750,000 105,850 101,998
Cheshire £6,461,000 £16,091,055 82,468 80,611
Cornwall £5,960,000 £12,529,786 15,288 10,362
Cumbria £19,959,519 £18,798,000 120,065 122,910
Derbyshire £9,579,550 £9,580,000 103,755 94,404
Devon & Somerset £58,111,798 £40,910,985 344,835 289,788
Dorset £13,741,841 £12,349,470 80,085 75,995
Durham £12,786,267 £11,763,000 112,898 111,534
East Riding (Yorkshire) £10,507,459 £5,193,079 49,510 48,719
East Sussex £13,640,000 £13,000,000 70,040 62,145
Essex £14,254,755 £14,254,755 155,871 121,654
Greater Manchester £3,440,000 £5,923,000 41,363 40,062
Hampshire £15,262,307 £14,180,000 106,434 91,297
Herefordshire & Gloucestershire £31,090,658 £27,246,760 152,367 124,474
Highlands & Islands £50,830,000 £75,600,000 149,730 145,416
Isle of Wight £2,490,000 £2,490,000 17,617 17,649
Kent £17,063,509 £14,998,391 137,881 138,202
Lancashire £14,670,000 £22,540,000 147,334 143,698
Leicestershire £7,968,895 £10,884,647 73,641 72,760
Lincolnshire £16,110,000 £17,910,000 137,949 131,419
Merseyside £5,460,000 £4,374,000 43,905 43,966
Newcastle £970,000 £945,131 6,760 6,697
Norfolk £24,650,000 £24,210,000 203,201 192,394
North Lincolnshire £4,181,242 £1,880,963 29,442 29,201
North Yorkshire £28,160,000 £14,654,726 175,283 166,163
Northamptonshire £9,856,669 £11,009,000 79,349 72,937
Northern Ireland £11,454,000 £21,954,000 66,907 67,173
Northumberland £10,687,867 £11,986,750 49,620 47,272
Nottinghamshire £7,850,000 £9,288,644 69,401 65,804
Oxfordshire £8,184,500 £13,924,500 78,007 76,877
Rest of Scotland £50,000,000 £107,575,000 572,563 574,204
Rutland £1,000,000 £1,670,000 10,004 9,364
Shropshire £19,317,466 £12,722,000 69,782 62,889
South Gloucestershire £3,370,000 £3,521,123 21,673 18,557
South Yorkshire £10,395,000 £13,353,577 105,390 91,201
Staffordshire £9,620,000 £7,440,000 82,371 77,216
Suffolk £26,940,000 £26,044,703 126,812 118,185
Surrey £1,310,000 £19,020,081 78,245 75,039
Swindon £950,000 £950,000 20,138 17,010
Telford & Wrekin £2,157,000 £1,843,000 8,822 8,698
Wales £69,040,000 £176,913,075 754,791 700,364
Warwickshire £14,557,172 £14,557,172 74,301 55,675
West Oxfordshire £1,600,000 £1,556,675 4,788 968
West Sussex £8,011,243 £7,510,000 54,533 52,335
West Yorkshire £11,019,827 £11,175,487 103,485 90,040
Wiltshire £9,270,000 £16,496,000 83,610 74,383
Worcestershire £8,387,032 £11,390,000 66,561 57,654
£717,684,942 £940,408,828 5,478,254 5,076,552

The above figures only include 24Mbps+ capable premises in BDUK intervention areas.

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
45 Responses
  1. Avatar ash

    When are we going to stop calling 24Mbps “superfast” It was super fast 20 years ago, now it’s super slow.

    -100Mbps = Super slow
    +200Mbps = Slow
    +300Mbps = good
    +500Mbps = Fast
    +1000Mbps = Very fast

    • Yes but sadly that is the Government’s definition, albeit refined slightly to +30Mbps in recent contracts and by Ofcom, EU etc.

    • Avatar 24mpbs Fan

      24mbps great for multiple video streams, online gaming and work connections at the same time. Anything more than that is just being greedy.

    • Avatar NGA for all

      >24Mbps was specified to bring fibre bundles, typically 24 once beyond the AGN node to a point in the network beyond the exchange, be it PCP, Pole(DP) or even FTTP.
      Important that it was not ADSL2+.

      It is disappointing the B-USO is be to used in this manner. It was supposed to create a floor not become a ceiling.

      Most counties need to get themselves on the BDUK extended ‘spend-by’ dates so all excess monies (underspends!, capital deferreals and any other balances) reach where originally intended. There are monies enough to another 600-700k full fibre in rural if the appetite is there.

  2. Avatar Archie

    Virgin on Openreach? Pardon?

    • DCMS’s official chart doesn’t do a good job of separating this but I believe that bit is intended to reflect the network area where Openreach and Virgin Media overlap (mostly urban areas).

  3. Avatar SJ

    This is all very well, but when you are of the 3% that will have to try and enforce an upgrade via the USO it leaves a fairly bitter taste in the mouth. Especially when you consider the vast sums of public money involved (to which i have contributed just the same as everybody else) and that even with the USO the ISP’s still have a get out clause that means they are not actually under any obligation to provide a quality service.

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @SJ
      You’re in the majority in being a taxpayer that hasn’t benefited from the BDUK programme as that applies to around 70% of us – the 3% plus the approximately two thirds in commercial build areas.

      In reality relatively little public money has been spent as the high take up means most if not all of the subsidy will be repaid. If only other public contracts used this model!

    • Avatar Joe

      USO will be comfortably under 2% when it by the time its in and start to go live with connections.

      And USO has to have a cap or you could end up with utterly stupid examples of spending.The cap is the same as ordinary phones so its hardly out there…

    • Avatar AnotherTim

      The problem with the USO is that most eligible properties will cost more than the £3400 cap to connect – that’s why they haven’t been upgraded so far. The only sensible approach for most of them is 4G (or possibly fixed wireless in some areas). The USO isn’t a solution, it is just a political expedient to avoid admitting nothing will be done.

    • The USO does allow a degree of aggregation alongside a model of forecast take-up, which can help to balance the cost of a deployment when looking at an area vs a single dwelling. So don’t just look at the £3.4k cap.

    • Avatar AnotherTim

      Yes, USO aggregation may help in some cases, but I suspect not all. A few years ago I looked at a Community Fibre Partnership for my area. Unfortunately, due to the distance between the groups properties left orphaned by the BDUK FTTC rollout, there were only 6 properties viable for inclusion in my group of properties – the other groups of properties would have to have their own schemes. That left us with a bill of at least £5-7k per property. I don’t expect it has got much cheaper in the intervening time.
      I have also looked at fixed wireless, leased line, FFTPoD etc. It works out more sensible to give up work and retire early.
      4G is the only viable option (until Gigaclear reach my area in a few years time). I’ll use 4G for as long as it allows me to continue to work (maybe a year or two? – data is getting bigger very fast!), and then if Gigaclear hasn’t reached me by then I’ll give up and retire.

    • Avatar Joe

      AnotherTim: Eh!. Sat or 4g can cover eveyone. Fib is certainly more difficult and uneconomic in many cases though the costs have dropped significantly over the last few years and doubtless gov will probably have another subsidy eventually for all but the hardest cases.

    • Avatar AnotherTim

      @Joe, satellite is totally unusable for my needs – latency is too high (and monthly allowances are far too low). I work from home, and need to access remote software repositories – latency is a big problem (even on a local network!) due to the number of individual transactions involved. Data size is also a growing issue – I’m not at 1TB this month, but getting close. Took me over a week to download some test data!
      4G costs are now acceptable (I have Three AYCE for £20pm), but bandwidth in rural areas is still not superfast. By load balancing 4G and ADSL2+ I have an almost usable connection, but latency and bandwidth are very variable which causes some issues.

    • Avatar Joe

      @Tim: Well 99% of people are obviously not going to need what you need so thats USO generally sorted. In terms of 4g as you say its costs and bw packages are now pretty good and getting better all the time. Sat is an option even on latency with the new low Earth orbit sats. They are going to be option fairly soon now.

    • Avatar SJ

      @New_Londoner.
      Relatively little public money has been used? The table above shows that local councils and the like have contributed £940 million – that funding is outside of the BDUK repayment scheme.

    • Avatar AnotherTim

      @Joe, it will be years before LOE satellites are an option – just getting enough launch slots, even launching 30 at a time, will take years – and the service won’t be usable until there is a sufficient constellation to provide continuous coverage.

    • Avatar Joe

      USO may be 2 years away (delivery) so the overlap on LEO is not unrealistic

    • Avatar MikeP

      @New_londoner, sj

      Yes, in the end it will be (relatively) little public money. Which just goes to show that BT weren’t willing to take the risk. It’s wholly wrong for public money to be used to offset commercial risk – after all, public-private partnerships are all about transferring risk from the public purse to the private purse – yet BDUK did exactly the opposite. What was that all about ????…..

      What it was about is BT being treated by the stock market as a cash-generating utility stock, not a risk-taking tech stock. So they weren’t willing to do it on their dollar.

    • Avatar AnotherTim

      @Joe, I think you are being optimistic wrt LOE satellite broadband. OneWeb are in the lead at present, with six satellites in orbit and a small number more ready for launch. They are aiming to start small scale operation with select customers (e.g. airlines, shipping companies) in a couple of years, with full commercial broadband operation in 2027 (if there are no delays).

    • Avatar gerarda

      @joe

      Unfortunately the 1-2% that can’t get decent fixed broadband are likely to be pretty much the same ones that can’t a decent mobile signal

    • Avatar gerarda

      I find myself agreeing with New Londoner for once. If you consider that £1.7bn will fund less than 14 miles of Hugely Stupid 2 rail track, then relatively little public money has been spent.

  4. Avatar RL

    We live in the Morth of Scotland all around us have super fast broadband us only a couple of miles away suffer with 2to 4 mb. When will we get normal speeds

  5. Avatar Alan Perkins

    Openreach are a joke. We’ve had a roll of wire on the pole outside our house for four years. Still no fast broadband. We get 2.5mbps. They don’t give a toss about people who live in the countryside.

  6. Avatar Alan Perkins

    What should happen is you should be charged for what you get. If you are on a scheme that offers 20mbps for 20 pounds a month and you only get 2mbps you should only pay 2 pounds a month. That way there would be an incentive for them to improve your supply.

    • A nice idea but then why would any commercial operator even bother bringing internet capable lines of any speed to a remote rural area, where it costs more to deliver basic infrastructure (due to too few customers over a much bigger area).

      The sad reality is that it costs disproportionately more to reach such areas, so you’d be creating a further disincentive for investment. What operator in their right mind would even install basic ADSL if each customer is only going to pay £2 per month? The economics just don’t work and push up the subsidy requirements significantly.

      Also by this definition do people who receive 1000Mbps have to pay £1,000 per month?

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      @MarkJ
      Perhaps they can add a monthly charge to reflect the amount of infrastructure needed to deliver the service? Either way, Alan’s unlikely to find anyone prepared to provide him with a service at a massive loss.

    • Avatar Meadmodj

      @Alan Perkins. Your situation is more down to the actions and approach of the government than it is OR. Hopefully BDUK will finish the job that they have promised and those left will be covered by the imminent USO registration. The government could introduce a broadband levy to subsidise those without decent speed or simple add more money to the pot but there is no likelihood of that. So realistically it will be 2021/22 but hopefully sooner if engineering work exists. The up side is that you may jump to FTTP quality.
      In the meantime a 4G solution may be better for service and cost if the outside signal is good and your data use remains moderate.

  7. Avatar Richard Brown

    Super fast cymru had an official delivery target of 99% coverage.

    Just saying

  8. Avatar Guy Cashmore

    Airband on Dartmoor and Exmoor, a project that was finished nearly 2 years ago is showing absolutely no increase on the last quarter, still at only 10.1%, about the worst take-up anywhere.

    What wonderful value for money CDS have delivered with our £4.6m of taxpayer money.

  9. Avatar Brian

    Anyone who feels let down by being in the 3% could try to console themselves by looking at regional figures, here 20% can’t get ‘superfast’. Of course its a rural area, so when you’ve upgrading those with the high speed connections in the towns and villages, to higher speeds, it leaves you with the rural properties who get nothing other than false information from Superfast Scotland. Ten years of empty promises is wearing a bit thin.

  10. Avatar Cheshire resident

    Interesting to see an independent compilation of figures. Our local body in Cheshire (which has been conspicuous by its absence from these pages in the past couple of years) boast of reaching 100,000 premises with a £20m spend, when the reality is only a little over 80,000 with £22½m. Maybe an innocent explanation around different accounting methods, but I wouldn’t bet on it….

    • Yeah some local authorities aren’t as good as others when it comes to communicating their progress. I often find myself hunting through council meeting documents just to figure out the bits they’re not saying openly.

    • Avatar Andrew Ferguson

      Have the thinkbroadband tracking but a swamped todo list means probably not going to produce a full comparative set so looking at Cheshire

      Identified as BDUK 97,370 premises in phase 1 with superfast (>24 Mbps)
      SEP Phase 2 9,466 superfast premises

      These figures are four weeks old, i.e. need to run update tonight.

  11. Avatar Techman

    So if nearly a billion quid is due to be handed back why do my local BDUK keep complaining they don’t have any money to upgrade us? I got a quote for FTTPOD and it was 19k and it covered 14 properties, so I’m sure it’s affordable for them to cover our whole street but they are not interested whatsoever.

    • Avatar Cheshire Resident

      With an assumed 70% take-up, that equates to around £2k per premises, so BT will be obliged to do it next year on the USO anyway. However, the sting is 4G – if you have 10 Mb/s outdoor 4G from anybody, the USO will not apply, so no upgrade.

      Does anybody know what the BDUK policy will be once the USO kicks in next year, assuming BT will be permitted to include 4G as a coverage option? If there is no 4G service, and the upgrade falls within the cost cap, BT have to do it relatively quickly with industry money. If there is 4G, they will have zero incentive in the medium term for expensive upgrades to low customer density FTTP, so unlikely to cost-share with BDUK. All that is left are the areas outside the cost cap, and I agree that BDUK have been very adverse to high unit cost upgrades so far. The most likely scenario seems a be slow over-build of 4G with FTTP and BDUK picking up most of the tab, as ever starting with the easier to do areas…

    • Avatar Joe

      @CR: Basically yes

    • Avatar Andrew Ferguson

      19k for 14 premises – how big is the whole street then?

      The projects go for the lowest cost first usually, then start to do batches of the harder more expensive, with pauses in between to see how much money is left. So what was too expensive in 2017, might be within the criteria in 2020

      NOTE: Some projects may not want to spend all the clawback and savings, since they may want to return it to accounts where the original money was borrowed from.

    • Avatar Techman

      The whole street is 35 properties and then there are another 40 properties on joining roads. We all get sub 13mbps speeds which BDUK have deemed good enough. Remember the 19k quote was for FTTPod so presumably it would be a lot cheaper than that to do all these properties. BDUK are not interested though.

    • Avatar Andrew Ferguson

      The cost per premise may come down, but the price overall would go up i.e. the easier to do premises (if they are) will subsidise the harder to do.

      Maybe the BDUK project is looking to deal with others with even slower speeds first, so many unknowns that without a massive amount of information from the project and Openreach everything is just lots of conjecture and annoyance at being missed to date.

    • Avatar Cheshire Resident

      Given those numbers, I fully agree with BDUK – you have a useable connection so the priority for state aid must be those that don’t. How would you justify to somebody with sub-2 Mb/s that you have a more deserving case…?

    • Avatar Techman

      Very true and I have no problem with them targetting even slower areas but we should not be completely cut out of the loop entirely just because it’s useable speeds, 12/1 while OK for a single user is increasingly struggling and won’t cut it at all in a few years time. And with infrastructure all around us alreasy I highly doubt it would be that expensive to do.

    • Avatar Techman

      Also the USO will cover sub 10mbs properties meanwhile we will be stuck for a very very long time

    • Avatar Joe

      Tbh if you get >10/1 you connection is prob close enough to an exchange/cabinet that in the end the connection will be upgraded.

  12. Avatar Brian

    The USO won’t cover many rural properties as the cost will still be too high for many.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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 £18.00 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 30Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Code: SPRING19
  • Vodafone £21.00 (*23.00)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.50
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Direct Save Telecom £22.95 (*29.95)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • SSE £23.00 (*33.00)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited (FUP)
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2366)
  2. FTTP (1917)
  3. FTTC (1566)
  4. Broadband Delivery UK (1529)
  5. Politics (1305)
  6. Openreach (1303)
  7. Business (1151)
  8. Statistics (1017)
  9. Mobile Broadband (942)
  10. FTTH (925)
  11. Fibre Optic (924)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (857)
  13. Wireless Internet (851)
  14. 4G (822)
  15. Virgin Media (788)
  16. Sky Broadband (565)
  17. TalkTalk (545)
  18. EE (538)
  19. Vodafone (452)
  20. Security (387)
New Forum Topics
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