Skip Navigation


Work begins to deliver fibre to Lincolnshire Villages
Monday 14 June 2010 10:39:31 by John Hunt

Fibrestream have begun work to deliver fibre optic broadband to two small villages in Lincolnshire. The two villages were identified by an ISPreview reader on the first of the month as Ashby De La Launde and Bloxholm near Lincoln.

Friday saw the commencement of work as road digging began by contractors to deliver the fibre optic cable to get them connected to the high-speed broadband world. A video of the works can be seen on the Fibrestream blog. The two villages will be connected up to receive Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) which will offer speeds up to 100Mbps. The service is expected to cost between £20 and £30 a month and install costs will vary up to £150 depending on how involved customers are willing to be (such as digging their own trenches for the fibre cable through their garden. More details can be found in our previous news article.

Comments

Posted by pje1979 over 6 years ago
Lucky people.
Posted by Gamerwillz over 6 years ago
Lucky lucky residents! I wish I could have access to fibre broadband. :(
Posted by tiggerrmummy over 6 years ago
I would have thought this would be more useful in Wales where that poor lady was asked to stump up £250,000 for BB by BT last week than a couple of villages in North lincolnshire that already have BB.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Interesting to note that this has happened through collaborative joined up thinking. The road was going to be resurfaced, so working with the council, highways and tarmac there are hardly any obstacles to get over. This is true Next Gen thinking. Well done to ALL concerned and to fibrestream for joining the dots. The beauty of this method is that a CIC company can also provide cheaper wifi access for those who don't want to invest in ftth yet, and profits are reinvested to extend the fibre network. Magic. A village pump. (POP).
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
I can't believe this is going on 15miles away from me! Its literally just up the A road!
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
tiggerrmummy, the villages don't have broadband, that is why they started this initiative to get it. Unless you count expensive satellite as broadband that is.
Its not just the lady in wales without access, many areas are 'notspots' and roughly a third of the uk has limited or non existant adsl broadband. (bt admitted it)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I had a quick look but couldn't see what they are actually connecting to? How are they actually connecting into the Internet who is the ISP and what do you get for between £20-30 a month?
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@GMAN99: There's a link in the original news article to the company's website where there's a bit more detail, and also to a radio interview with the MD where he explains the project.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
They say:

So is Fibrestream an ISP then?

Not really. Principally Fibrestream builds, designs and operates networks on behalf of the organisations who own them. We advise community organisations to operate an ‘open LAN’ policy across their networks to allow any ISP to interconnect and provide bandwidth to end users. This promotes choice and competition.

In the event of market failure, at the inception of a network or at request Fibrestream can make arrangements to provide backhaul and is happy to discuss this further with you.

So an ISP connection is on top of the £20 - £30/month?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
That's what I'm wondering Somerset, Fibresteam are just the wires, they have to hook into something and there's going to be a cost associated with that and if they are offering uncontended 100Mb to the each villager (unsure how many properties) that interconnect is going to be be costly. I'm not sure where this split is I mean, if £20-30 a month covers the rental of the interconnect the £150 to install fibre to the home seems a bit cheap, not sure how they can do that. I'm inclined to think the £150 and £20-30 goes to fibrestream and there's something else on top to go to the ISP.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - joined up thinking comes from councils being very unhappy if a contractor digs up the road just after they have resurfaced it.

Next Gen thinking - load of nonsense!
Posted by djfunkdup over 6 years ago
krazykizza...u use/waste enough bandwidth as it is with your ibone.....
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
I use the data yes, but it is not waste. How was School djfunkdup
Posted by djfunkdup over 6 years ago
yea school was great thanks...;)..i attend the university of life...i learn something new every day...maybee you should do the same and then you will understand your greed....;)
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
somerset, our village street was resurfaced. within 6 months they brought gas in and dug it up. then they dug it up again to run a new telephone cable in, then they dug it up again to replace the main sewer which runs right down the middle of it. Twice this month our main road has been crossed with a dig. Twice I have been unable to bury a duct at the same time. Can't get past the jobsworths to the decision makers. Next gen thinkers would bury a spare duct any time a hole is dug.
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
Haha. your a very bitter and spiteful little 'boy' and I hope your mother doesn't catch ypu using the internet like this.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - I thought councils were supposed to coordinate digging...

You can't bury a duct because you haven't got a licence. Council round here has used a teleco contractor to put in miles of duct linking local schools.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
update on the village dig tonight, radio lincs, move dial to 2hrs 50minutes. If you listen at 2hrs 32mins you can also hear @tref talking about bandwidth limitations as an ISP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0087gd4/William_Wright_14_06_2010/
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
100M up and down. What's the connection and to where?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"resurfacing" in rural lincs is likely to be tar spraying and chippings, which would neither be helped nor hindered by trenching before or after - you still have to put a load bearing surface on top of the trench.

Multiply the number of blokes in the video by £10/hr and the vehicles by £80/day, divide this by the metres per hour work rate and tell me this is economic ?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
thinking about this more, isn't the best technique these days to cross a road with directional drilling or similar techniques ? I saw a factory gas supply put under the River Trent like that. The video just shows a few trenches being put across a road - a cynic would say it is almost a publicity stunt !
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But the 100 Up and Down is what is configured and set in the home, there's still no details on who is the ISP and whether you will get 100up/down if everyone it using it once (i.e no contention). For me this smacks of h2O and their network, rolling it out but as yet not connected to the outside world. Hope I'm wrong though.
Posted by PeteK over 6 years ago
h2O are desperate for wholesale suppliers - they called us up yesterday - for chuff sake we are 350 miles from their nearest deployment, and while not technically an issue, hardly target market..
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
So a 100M ethernet connection would give the 'speeds up to 100Mbps'.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Just like my PC has an 'up to 100M' connection to my router?
Posted by adriandaz over 6 years ago
The service is going to be provided over a leased circuit which can be scaled upto 1Gbps.
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
1gbps backbone for users with upto 100mbits. hmmm, i smell slowness!
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
1G - should be fine.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
There's just not enough detail to go on I guess, so we are looking at "an up to" 1Gbps circuit to cover both villages? Let hope the take up is minimal then as that is a lot of potential 100Mbps into one pipe. I expect it will in reality go like this, fibrestream will rent minimum bandwidth to start with (unsure who foots that bill) most villagers will take the wireless option (speeds unknown... under 10Mbps?) , not many will take the fibre option, those who do may get 100Mbps but doubtful as they won't upgrade the central circuit unless there's demand.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Its a great idea, I'm not just not sure its viable to be honest, the proof will be in the pudding. In in "not spot" does your average punter just want a connection at a decent speed (less than 10Mbps) or full on 100Mbps cane it speeds? I'd say the former.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
In a notspot the punter wants a connection that works. Most don't understand speed. But getting a connection that works is a lot easier if you use fibre, cos it does just work. It is also a worthwhile investment because more capacity can be put down it, whereas other methods can only go so far and then have to be replaced. So whether they buy 2 meg or 200 meg feed it makes no difference on fibre. That's why its a waste of money running more copper out to them. Might as well do the job right first time.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - you do drone on about fibre.

The difference between a 2M and a 200M feed is cost - big cost.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
the difference between laying a fibre and laying new copper is negligible that's the point. Fibre is cheap. To get to the notspots you lay fibre. As people want more they can pay for more bandwidth. If you lay copper to them now and bond it then in a few years you will still have to lay fibre. Might as well do the job right first time. Drone on? Somebody has to, otherwise the copper cabal will stifle this country for another decade or more.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm not talking about copper though, it says on the interview where there is little demand in a part of the village they will deliver via wireless and where there is demand if required fibre to the premises. I'm saying I bet most people in the village will be happy with a lower speed, good, cheaper wireless connection, than a high speed, higher cost great fibre connection. As for the feed it does matter because they are touting speeds of up to 100Mb when in reality they maybe able to deliver it via fibre from the "pump" to the premises but not have the backhaul to deliver it.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - fibre is being installed now for FTTC and FTTP. Fibre has been installed for businesses for the last 20 years - did you know that?

How much new copper is being installed?

ps. BT invented blown fibre.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - Before you rule out FTTC look at the engineering and financial aspects.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
I don't rule out anything. All I am saying is ftth is the job done. If it can't be afforded then we settle for alternatives. If we have a choice ftth is better than new copper. For bonding BET more copper will be needed due to DACS. Far better to lay fibre. or FTTC. Trouble is BT won't do FTTC in rural areas. They won't do any NGA in final third for ages, and have categorically said that 10% will NEVER get NGA. That is why we need companies like fibrestream. They go where others fear to tread.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
The beauty of laying your own fibre is that the community will own it. That will cut out having to have a phone line won't it? shove a femtocell on your fibre connection and mobile is free too? isn't it? (I am asking not telling)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
The next few years will be interesting...

Fibrestream have to make a profit.

Who is 'the community' that own their own fibre. How do you deal with faults?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
I guess this will be one of the first communities that own their own fibre. apart from my tiny bit I guess. If there is a fault you will have to get it fixed yourself I suppose. it will all be built into the plan. I don't know how it will all work, but yes, it will be interesting.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
And that there could be the issue, like you say we'll see what happens. But what happens if/when said contractor digs through a fibre and cuts off a home/street. Who will pay for that to be repaired, it should be the contractor eventually but in the meantime who pays to repair that line, you? Fibrestream? Sorry if it sounds all negative its just that as their is a lack of detail its easy to pull it apart. I still like the idea though, I hope they pull if off.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Think we are into cutting edge stuff here, the early ones in the game will document the problems so others can avoid them. Think that is why this gov wants some pilot studies. Fibrestream will be in a great position to advise them...
Nothing like having real life experience of the issues.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Here's hoping this doesn't end up going cap in hand to central government, that would be disastrous.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
It would, but so far as I know, the only ones going cap in hand to the Government are BT ("please give us the money to do fibre so we can compete with Virgin") - overall I think this is very positive, and if it works in a small rural area, it knocks away most of the arguments about it being completely uneconomic to achieve.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Or is it Sky, Talktalk, o2 etc. wanting to compete with VM?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Last I heard BT were expecting government to pay for BET.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
I must have missed the bit where BT asked the government for money in order to compete with Virgin. Don't see any government money being requested for the 2/3rds country coverage of FTTC/P that's been announced. If you could point me to a link that'd be appreciated.

Regarding fibre in small rural areas. It's actually quite feasible depending on the area - it's massively spread out rural areas that are troublesome, nice clustered villages are easy enough once the backhaul is there.
Posted by EnglishRob over 6 years ago
I spoke to Fibrecity the other week about re-using some fibre we have going to the premises where I work. I'm not sure if they could re-use the fibre, but they did say that the contention would be how ever many customers are connected. They did say that if there was some interest from other local businesses that the cost could be shared but I get the impression from other companies in the area there isn't much interest, so we're stuck with up to 4 Meg on BT, Virgin Cable (which doesn't cover where I work) or expensive BT fibre. :-(

Rob
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
ER - whose fibre is it?
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@Dixinormous - actually, the other way around - my take was that BT basically said that broadband isn't going anywhere in the direction of fibre without the taxpayer contributing to the upgrade of their ancient network, and since New Labour endlessly capitulated to business, the telephone tax was introduced to get the cash to give to them.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/351580/bt-offers-to-fill-broadband-notspots-if-government-pays
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But it is going somewhere its already in progress. It's probably the final third we are talking about again, if the customer won't pay extra for a broadband connection in hard to reach areas (whether its provided by BET or Fibre or Wireless) and BT won't absorb the cost and make a loss on each connection (why should they?) then the money has to come from somewhere. Which was as you say the Broadband tax
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@MarkHampshire - I would count £2.5 Billion of investment as going in the direction of FttP.

And before you say anything, first you put in 21CN, then you put in FttC, then you put in FttP. These steps are all required in this order.

You Can go straight to FttP, but its very costly and FttC makes a very reasonable stepping stone for considerably less outlay.

This will allow for cash to come in to further fund FttP. Please remember, BT are a company. A company that makes a loss on everything goes bankrupt, they have to have cash coming in to invest in this stuff.
Posted by tiggerrmummy over 6 years ago
Re Cyberdoyle,I went and checked out the areas mentioned.I checked on a map for not spots, I cannot see either area included as a not spot. There are more not spots around Sleaford than Lincoln. I find it hard to believe they have no BB at all being so close to various unis and air bases so I am wondering how this fibre plan came into being, and why those areas.
I do think there are more important things for telecom companies to be spending money on,like existing networks and the lack of any,eg Wales.I guess little old ladies in Wales are just not rich enough to warrant the spend.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@TaRkADaHl - as I've said before, if we didn't still have an archaic copper and aliminium network of lines and investment had been progressive, then there would be no need for such a huge outlay now. I have no problem with state funding for fibre if we deem it to be essential, like hospitals, roads etc. - what I do have a problem with is handing taxpayers cash to a monopoly. To take trains as an example, we spend more on subsidy now than ever, yet the service is yet to get back to state levels of reliability and safety. It's called socialising the loss and privatising the profit.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 - if Virgin Media found new funding/entered a partnership and announced an aggressive roll out plan to get say 85% of the country cabled, do you think BT might change their mind about the need for investment as they watch their cash cow dry up? If so, might that point to the structure - with BT (lines) being a privatised monopoly in the other 50% of the country - being chiefly responsible for lack of progress?
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@cyberdoyle - LOL at the comments on that PC Pro article you posted - seems I'm not quite alone in my views :-)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean Mark, are you saying that if Virgin cabled more of the country everyone would jump ship and use them instead of BT lines? It doesn't happen now so why would it if 85% of the country was Virgin Cabled? Also re: your comments about public funding a monopoly well I agree any taxes should be available to any company willing to provide access to the final third, not just BT.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
I'm saying that at present, there isn't much incentive for BT to do anything about lines which are in non cabled areas. Ironically were it not for cable, there would probably be no ADSL2 and no FTTC. If you were BT why would you bother investing - what's in it for you if people have to use your ancient network anyway. I'd say it's precisely that which has held back the development of broadband for a long time: the lack of a genuine market.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
tiggerrmummy most notspots aren't on any map. Anyone further than a few km from an exchange will never get decent adsl, and many areas have DACS on the lines so a lot of them can't get adsl at all. One area near me is only 7km from a city and a university and 55 homes can't get even decent dial up. No mobile either. They don't show up on a notspot map because they haven't registered. (they can't get online) ;)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
A few km? I'm about 4km from mine and I get 5Mb which is fine for me, I wouldn't mind a better upload but its certainly not holding me back.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Dixie, here's your link, http://bit.ly/aFVD5q BT get state funding to deliver broadband to Cornwall.
And they are only doing just 86%. they aren't even doing the final third in cornwall - some will still have to use satellite or mobile. Its a scandal.
The other firm tendering had to withdraw, cos they couldn't share existing ducts/poles and had to dig from scratch. So BT can effectively kill any opposition? State aid is a joke. Funding should be for final third only.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
'the difference between laying a fibre and laying new copper is negligible that's the point'

What about the cost of the kit on the ends? And copper is still needed for voice at present.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - they are doing 86% and not the final 33%?

Please explain.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
'some will still have to use satellite or mobile.'

These technological solutions will be implemented by BT's partners, Avanti (satellite) and Motorola (wireless).

Because the cost of fibre to small numbers of remote premises is way too high?

The other firm couldn't use BT poles because Ofcom has not sorted out sharing agreements?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
all public funding should go to the areas that BT ignore cos there isn't enough profit in them. Ofcom will never get decent sharing agreements. There should be a case for y purchase of assets in rural areas and let someone else provide NGA. Yes they are doing 86% - most of which it is economic to do and shouldn't have state aid. The same pattern will follow throughout the country. Private investors will get frozen out of tender process because they have no infrastructure. Those with the infrastructure can do urban without funding.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
So who will purchase rural assets, which will still be needed for PSTN? And then how will this someone else fund the installation?

How do you know the 86% is economic?

Please explain in greater detail.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
communities and private companies or government http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/20/2931852.htm
should be able to purchase existing assets and once fibre replaces the copper who needs pots? mobile via your own fibre network will be part of the service.
86% must be economic cos bt say they are going to do it. dunno if I believe them but that's the figure they quoted in the cornwall funding saga. Its economic only with funding from the sound of it. what don't you understand?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
So the government pays BT £xx billion to set up a separate company, not unlike BT Openreach, who are a supplier to all ISPs and telcos in the UK?

And BT Retail becomes a customer, just like it and others are now of Openreach.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
actually... why not? only this company would be a CIC. It would put its profits back into improving the business instead of paying fat cats and shareholders who don't give a stuff about having a digitalbritain. I am all for businesses making money, but not by holding back progress to pay shareholders, & hoodwinking government that they are providing a decent service .Even now the ofcom website still says 99.8% of uk is connected to a dsl enabled exchange. (they omit to say its for voice only services)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
More here - http://www.nbnco.com.au/
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
and more here: http://www.glgroup.com/News/Whos-Broadband-Free-Market-Is-It-Anyway--Local-Communities-of-course.-49076.html
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Sounds like some areas have the equivalent of VM and nothing else.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.