Skip Navigation

Q1 2009 market data published by Ofcom
Monday 07 September 2009 23:14:03 by John Hunt

Ofcom have today published telecommunications market data for the period Q1 2009. Ofcom publish figures quarterly that show details on number of lines, SMS and call volumes and a snippet of information on Broadband.

Period Total BT Retail Other DSL Virgin Media Other (inc LLU) BT Retail share Virgin Media share
2006 13,013 3,103 5,530 3,059 1,322 23.8% 23.5%
2007 15,606 4,139 4,290 3,414 3,764 26.5% 21.9%
2008 Q3 16,924 4,464 3,714 3,626 5120 26.4% 21.4%
2008 Q4 17,276 4,545 3,509 3,683 5,539 26.4% 21.3%
2009 Q1 17,557 4,634 3,408 3,730 5,786 26.4% 21.2%
Numbers of residential and small business broadband connections (000's)

The numbers reported by Ofcom do not segregate out mobile broadband services so it's unclear how mobile broadband is growing and whether this is taking any significant share from the fixed-line market. Total broadband connections were recorded at 17.557 million, a bit under Point Topic's recorded 17.661m in their Q1 2009 world broadband statistics report.

An OTA2 update also released today for August 2009 reveals unbundled broadband lines are now at 6.06m which helps to show the growth in the market since March 09.


Posted by JohnUK over 8 years ago
Note Virgin having virtually identical market share but nowhere near the same regulatory obligations, no LLU network, no awkward rules, no forced rollout and no price limits, charming!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
And even then they can't even hold their market share.
Posted by pje1979 over 8 years ago
Virgin media's cable areas are limited though.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
Yeah. All those advantages and yet BT are on the up. If that's BT Vision at work it ought to scare VM - especially with the FTTC roll-out targeting a lot of their home territory.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Virgin's cable areas are pretty much saturated.

Actually the UK market as a whole is saturated, anyone maintaining customer numbers is doing fine. Unsure why the surprise about BT being 'on the up' it's nothing to do with the quality of the BT product and you'd be naive to think otherwise. Still apologies for bringing silly things like facts into the VM bash, BT Retail rule, etc...
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
If VM's 21% is cable only and therefore achieved in less than 50% of households it is under 50% market share for a service offerring faster speeds and no attenuation/distance issues. If it includes Virgin ADSL connections then the cable market share is even lower.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
JohnUK - How many of Virgin's customers have only Virgin as an option for fixed line services?

OK and how many of BT's customers could get a land line not provided by BT at some point in the chain, hence prone to abuse at wholesale and/or retail level.

You can see where I'm going with this.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
@Dix:Chip on shoulder, perhaps? I don't see much of a bashing here. Just a few of us discussing the results and musing over why VM seems to have lost but BT has gained.

Personally I wouldn't touch either of them with a barge pole but it's intriguing. I thought at first that 'BT Retail' was a mistake and it meant 'BT Wholesale'. That at least would make sense but I assume that 'Other DSL' rules that explanation out.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Zero chip, just wondering why the amusing notion of BT being any kind of competitor in triple play. Freeview + a bit of VOD is hardly cable or Sky. Most of the advantages don't matter to people when they can get Internet free or next to free from Talk Talk / Sky / whomever else.

BT gain because they're BT, the default choice for those with no idea how poor their product is, everyone knows BT and they probably get a good part of those new to DSL.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
yep, BT will have tons of companies simply from the fact they BT, the good trusted company that everyone has known for decades. Not to mention the 2 hours of tv adverts they put on daily.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Dixinormous - Listen to the nice Herbwick on this. He's right.

And yea, you're going off the deep end. Srsly. State telecoms companies in other countries have crahsed and burned, that BT manages to hold up as well as it does under the burden of its regulation is..well, they're /good/.

Stripping it away and letting them get on with things would be better, of course.

(And yea, of COURSE they're deploying FTTC to the VM heartland - it's one place where they can get a lot of lines, unlike everywhere else)

And BT are not that bad. Live in Hull for a year, experience KCom, then get back to me.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Right, an 'unlimited' package which is actually capped around the 100GB/month level, is intensely shaped, and costs 24.46/mth on a 12 month contract is 'good'.

BT prey on the ignorance of consumers as to what their competition offers and rely on brand recognition to get broadband custom. To claim it's anything to do with the quality of the product is absurd.

Unregulated telco, great idea because it *really* works in the USA when there's no infrastructure based competition, IE everywhere there's no cable.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
I'll gladly point you to the appauling state of competition in the USA and Canada outside of areas with multiple infrastructures, and in the case of Canada even where there are infrastructures as examples of what happens when regulation is softened.

It may be fine for people like yourself with shares or other interests in BT but is an amazingly bad idea for consumers.

When you join the rest of us back on the real world visit for some more information on how fantastic deregulation is for customers, only blessing for USA is almost universal cable competition.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Herdwick made a point about VM's market share. He's right.

And for the vast majority of users, BT provides an effective broadband connection, yes. If you want to start an education campaign otherwise, please do so, but whining about it and not doing anything is simply amusing.

I am not arguing for no regulation, but 95% of the crap BT have to deal with is ridiculous. Also, they should be able to charge LLU operators at actual cost plus a fixed profit percentage, not below-cost prices which unfairly hinders them in the market.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Different thread, same discussions. I do wonder why you work for a games company when in your own mind you are the be all and end all of regulatory affairs and next-generation networks on TBB though. You should start your own consultancy, or alternatively just give it up and get a position in BT PR so you can get paid for your shilling on here.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Yes it was a pointless remark though so are most of your posts. BT good, LLU bad, fibre rubbish unless BT are doing it, FTTC great because it's what BT are doing *yawn*

Send your invoice to or fax it to 020 7356 6630
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Ohnoes, I have an opinion!

What do you stand for precisely? Oh, right, being an ass and trying everything in your power to get BT to go bankrupt, hindering broadband rollouts. Nothing viable can pass your lips.

And BT being forced to fund LLU operators is ridonculous. Even some LLU companies say so.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Which LLU companies are those? I tried a few different googles and the only references I could find to BT supplying LLU below cost were your comments here.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I think you need to check the TBB archives, there was a story here about refusal to adjust the rates BT charged to account for costs.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
in my last comment I meant "customers" not "companies".
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
History is littered with excellent products that failed because of bad marketing or lousy timing. Being technically good does not guarantee success.

Those figures suggest that things are going quite well for BTr and not so good for VM. Hence my comment that if I were VM I wouldn't be happy.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.