Skip Navigation


Ofcom release annual review of the communications market
Thursday 19 August 2010 19:02:14 by John Hunt

Ofcom have today published their annual Communications Market Report which looks at changes within the industry to see how the relevant media and communications markets which it oversees are progressing. As well as the 379 page main report, they have also produced separate reports focusing on each of the nations of the UK.

One of the key trends they seem to be indicating this year is that people are spending more time consuming media and multi-tasking whilst doing this. On average, half of our waking hours are spent using media content and communication services, including watching TV, browsing the web or talking on the phone. Mobile phones are taking up a larger portion of this and around 63% of mobile usage by 16-24 year olds is for text messaging or using social media. Around 40% of our time on computers is spent communicating, whilst this is higher for 16-24 year olds (over 50%).

Consumers have also changed how they buy communication and media products. Around half of households buy two or more communication services from one supplier in a bundle, and the main reason given (in 52% of cases) for doing so is value for money. Triple play, the bundling of telephone, TV and broadband only makes up around 17% of this, but this is largely due to recent evolutions of the market. BT for example have only recently been allowed to start offering bundled products. One benefit seen for companies offering bundled products is that their customers are less likely to change to a new provider.

Television

In the television market, advertising revenues fell in 2009 by 9.6% to £3.1 billion, leading TV industry revenue as a whole to be down by 0.4% at £11.1 billion. Pay-TV subscriptions continued growth however with revenues up by 7.5% to £319 million. 37% of homes had a digital video recorder (DVR) and time shifted television accounted for only 5.9% of all viewing (but around 15% of viewing for those with a DVR).

Catch-up TV services such as BBC iPlayer and ITV Player grew by a third to include 31% of Internet users in Q1 2010. The most prominent growth is unsurprisingly in the 15-24 age group and men consume 34% of catch-up TV in comparison to women at 29%. BBC iPlayer makes up the largest proportion of catch-up TV at around 17% of the market whilst Channel 4's 4oD followed with 3.6% leading ITV Player at 3.4%. iPlayer usage itself grew by 77% to 93 million streams in the year ending April 2010. 8% of these streams were for live TV.

Internet

Internet take-up in the UK has nearly made it to three-quarters of UK households. 76% of homes have a computer, and 73% of households now have an Internet connection. Broadband makes up the majority of these connections covering 71% of households. Take-up of fixed line broadband didn't increase from the 65% of 2009 but mobile broadband is on the rise with 15% (up from 12%) of consumers now having a mobile broadband connection (through a USB dongle).


Household PC and Internet take-up 2005-2010 (source: Ofcom)

Two-thirds of households with fixed connections use a WiFi network at home to connect to their broadband service and a quarter of adults user their mobile phone to access the Internet. Two-thirds of people, however, say they have no interest in using their mobile phone in this way whilst 12% say they are interested but not confident in doing it.

One focus of the government recently has been to encourage people to get online with Martha Lane Fox, UK Digital Champion, tasked with the role of encouraging this. Race Online 2012 was launched this year as a challenge to get everyone in the UK online and Ofcom stats show that progress has been made since 2009, particularly in the over 55 age groups.


Home Internet access by age, socio-economic group and gender (source: Ofcom)

Telecoms

2009 saw the mobile industry hit hard with retail revenues falling for the first time since Oftel (Ofcom's predecessor) began collecting data in the 1990's. Revenues fell 2.6%, down to £30.4 billion. Fixed voice, which accounted for 60% of total telecom revenue in 1998, has declined every year from 2000 and now contributes less than 30% of annual revenues. 2009 also saw the first ever decline in revenue from mobile services, falling by 3.5% to £14.9 billion. This decline in the mobile sector is put down to falling prices as there has been an increase in the number of connections, call minutes and SMS/MMS messages. Revenue from fixed Internet access also fell by 1.9% from its peak of £3.4 billion in 2008 which is due in part to an increase in bundled services which include broadband with TV and phone services.

Mobile data revenues have grown faster than fixed revenues largely due to the increased take up of mobile broadband (either by smartphone or mobile dongle). Data usage on mobile broadband has grown by an estimated 2200% in the two years up to the end of 2009 whilst data revenues only increased by 26% (although this revenue excludes revenue from bundled data in contracts).

Total UK data usage, as estimated by Cisco, saw around 600 petabytes a month with nearly 79% of this being generated by fixed-broadband Internet access. Voice over IP (VoIP) and IPTV accounted for around 20%. 78% of the total was consumer IP traffic with business traffic making up the rest. 15% of this Internet traffic was what Ofcom called 'web data', whilst 30% was file sharing through things like peer-to-peer networks (P2P) and another 30% was video (including cable and IPTV video on demand (such as BT Vision)).

Broadband speeds have increased with the average headline broadband speed increasing by 2.5Mbps to 9.4Mbps. This means that of products sold to consumers, this is the average fastest speed that consumers could possibly expect, although this wouldn't take in to account overheads (for example an 8meg broadband connection can only achieve around 7.1-7.2meg maximum, and a 24meg connection peaks at around 20-21meg). This increase comes about from operators increasing the roll-out of faster services such as Virgins cable broadband products now offering a minimum of 10meg broadband speeds, and BT Wholesale now offering faster products with speeds up to 24meg.

Whilst it is good to see an increase in headline speeds, it would be nice to see actual speeds increase in-line, but these have risen to only 5.2Mbps, widening the gap between headline speeds and actual speeds received. This is largely because ADSL2+ broadband services do not offer a huge improvement in speed unless you live close to the exchange. This gives an average actual speed of less than 40% of the headline speeds.

LLU (local loop unbundling) saw an increase in penetration of only 0.4% in 2009 increasing to 84.5% of premises being connected to an unbundled exchange compared to an increase of 4% in 2008 and 13.6% in 2007. The number of lines taking an LLU service rose by 0.9 million to total 6.4 million at the end of 2009.

Next-generation broadband services continue to see limited take up with BT's fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) technology passing 1.5 million homes at the end of July 2010 but Point Topic estimated there were only 12,000 live connections using it at the end of June. One reason given for the slow take up by Ofcom is the price premium that these faster services attract. Many consumers will not be willing to pay the extra when they perceive their current service to be adequate for their needs, leaving current users as early-adopters.

Mobile broadband growth has levelled off somewhat, peaking at 15% of households in Q3 2009 and totalling 4.1 million active subscribers at the end of 2009. Mobile broadband as the sole technology for a household doubled from 3% to 6% in Q1 2010 compared with the same period in 2009, with broadband growth generally being boosted by users getting online for the first time via mobile broadband. Of surveyed households, 69% would not considering taking up a mobile broadband service and 45% responded to the survey by disagreeing with the statement "mobile broadband is for me." Many are not satisfied with mobile broadband services and a high proportion of respondents believed that mobile broadband coverage is poor (approximately 37%), and that in comparison to fixed line broadband it is more expensive (58%), slower (48%) and less reliable (43%).

In the two years up to March 2010, the number of people in the UK accessing the Internet on their mobile more than doubled with around 13.5 million adults (around 28%) reporting to visit at least one site on their mobile in March 2010. 73.5% of mobile phones sold on contracts in June 2010 were smartphones, around a 10% increase in users compared with 2009.

The full Ofcom report which also covers Radio and breakdowns of specific UK nations can be found here.

Comments

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Interesting on the Next Gen Broadband take up, so no-one actually wants in then? :)
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
or maybe no one likes the usage allowance...
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Fttc isn't next gen. Its just faster than adsl. Its still going through the copper, with the same problems. Wonder how much all this information gathering cost us? Wonder why Ofcom don't mention the third of the country who can't get a decent service. That could be why broadband take up is stuck at 71%?
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
quote "Wonder why Ofcom don't mention the third of the country who can't get a decent service. That could be why broadband take up is stuck at 71%?"

haha i thought exactly the same thing.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
If its better than the previous generation of broadband offerings I'd call it next gen. I don't believe the term next gen means "To deliver a broadband service without copper". I'd certainly consider Virgin's 50Mb, 100Mb and 400Mb services next gen as well.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
quote"If its better than the previous generation of broadband offerings I'd call it next gen."

True.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Lack of take up on FTTC doesn't surprise me. The people it's targeted at least need it. If they were rolling it out in slow- and not- spots they'd see far higher take up.

I'm a case in point. My Be Unlimited connection syncs at 14Mb/s and delivers 12mb/s 24/7/365. Why would I need more?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
(edit)Damn' it. That last 'm' should be an 'M'. Stupid laptop keyboard. Bah.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@cyberdoyle
Not sure I agree on the third of the country that "can't get a decent service". Just beacuse a third of the country that might not get next gen broadband without govt. support doesn't mean that they can't get a decent service with current broadband offerings.

@AndrueC
You might be happy with your download speed, I suspect there are many small businesses that will welcome faster upload speeds as they have teh option to take FTTC or FTTP.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
I suspect many more of us will look to FTTC at home as IPTV services become more widespread with Canvas, HD iPlayer etc.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
quote"If they were rolling it out in slow- and not- spots they'd see far higher take up."

I've never seen it from that point of view before, it does make sense. Someone with a 0.5Mbps to 8Mbps connection is probably far more likely to sign up to FTTC than someone with 15-24Mbps connection. I wonder what everyone else thinks.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
cont...

Upto 40Mbps prob wont make a difference to those on high adsl speeds, just wish the government would hurry up and pay for it and have fibre tax scrapped.

If they scrap fibre tax, the goverment can keep the 3% of the BBC licence fee to make up for the loss. Although i can't remember if the government is still going to use part of the BBC licence fee...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"or maybe no one likes the usage allowance.."

Think you have hit the nail on the head, why would a LLU user like myself getting 17+Mb and AndrucC above getting 14Mb want to pay extra for FTTC and then also face hard caps or silly peak off peak times.

They should had concentrated on giving FTTC to those that suffer with bad speeds and have done so for years.... They didnt though and this is the result.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Mobile broadband could have levelled the playing field.

Unfortunately operators/we the people will have to wait until Summer 2011 (or probably later) to start 3.75G/4G deployment.

In US on their 3.75G networks they get a decent ping and ~10/5Mb in busy areas. Comparing their 3G/3.75G speeds (taking congestion ratio into account), you're looking at ~3x speed increase.

If you want to blame anyone, blame yourselves for voting in another completely useless government along with all the previous ones.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
quote"They should had concentrated on giving FTTC to those that suffer with bad speeds and have done so for years.... They didnt though and this is the result."

So are you saying they should have started outside-in? i.e village's.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm sure usage allowance may play a factor, but it depends what your current one is? If your BT and go for Infinity its just the same, if your on Sky/BE etc... obviously it isn't. Hopefully when Sky and BE do their variants there will be more take up and I totally agree, targeting slow spots would have been better for take up (assuming there's no technical reason why that wasn't/isn't possible)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
'They should had concentrated on giving FTTC to those that suffer with bad speeds and have done so for years'

Who is 'they'? ISPs want to FTTC to compete with VM.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
'They' are the government and the quangos advising them.
The finalthirdfirst.org campaign is lobbying to get NGA to the final third, the ones who are too far from an exchange to get the USC. If this happens then the urbans get it too. If they mess about with FTTC that means another decade with digitalbritain in the slow lane.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
openreach can't do FTTC for the final third, for the same reason they can't provide ordinary adsl. Line lengths. It is BT's own figures that admit a third of the country can't get even a basic service.
The futureproof solution is to remove the copper, recycle it, replace with fibre.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
FTTC should done in villages and places where there the USC can't reach, if they still can't get 2Mb to a premises then it should just be given FTTH.

FTTH is the end-game anyway so might as well get it over and done with and save money.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Just need someone to find the cash for FTTH everywhere...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
if the Fibre Tax was scrapped it wouldn't be much of a problem..

You can then force duct sharing and allow using fibre along electrical poles/sewers and everything would be fine.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Please explain in more detail.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Fibre Tax needs scrapping, this is a big barrier to deploying fibre broadband. Even if they scrap it for 5-10 years there will be more fibre and the government would then make more after they bring the fibre tax back in a more fair form.

When i go on my bike and go from my town cycle through 3-4 villages there are big power lines which run through the fields nearby, if BT or another company was put the fibre cable on the same poles they could save a huge amount of money getting FTTC to a village since fibre does not get affected by electrical interference.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
They may need to work with the power companies but it is a lot cheaper than digging a massive trench to villages.

I3 Fibrecity (H2O Networks) plan on using sewers to deliver FTTH which would be great if the government can force the utility suppliers to share ducts, sewers, poles it would make things a lot a lot cheaper.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Once a certain level has been reached ie. 70% FTTH or 90% FTTC they could tax the old copper instead which would make the owners of that copper sell that copper like mad, and make a big profit.

Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
You could also be mean and make BT/VM/other providers pay a copper tax now instead of Fibre which would make them want to upgrade although that could backfire.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Ofcom have looked a duct sharing. What would people pay for a FTTH connection? You can't replace copper unless every pair is replaced, ie. every home is connected, even if they don't have broadband.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I don't trust Ofcom with any decision, they are useless.

I assume you are on about the copper tax i mentioned above, it would only apply to used copper i.e. a premises which does not have a fibre link and still uses the copper.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
All I see is people saying do FTTH and get it over and done with, who will pay for it? And will the customer actually want to pay the increased costs? For most I doubt they will
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@Cyberdoyle:The whole point of FTTC is that it reduces line length. Do you not understand that? I would imagine (surely) most villages are served from one or two cabinets. I know that the village where I work (Bucknell, Oxon) has a cabinet. FTTC would reduce the office line length from in 4.5km to 540m. That would jump us from 2Mb/s per line to in excess of 20Mb/s. Maybe as high as 30Mb/s.

Given that we currently manage fine on a combined total of 4Mb/s for five software developers working as part of a trans-Atlantic team I'd say that was a huge improvement.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I was saying FTTC but for those who still can't get at least 5Mb after the FTTC rollout then that customer might as well just get FTTH.

The government should pay for it, although u probably won't agree. BT are already investing £2.5bn so the government would only need to invest about £3bn.

If the government expects any sort of USC (2Mb) then they should pay for it, they cant just say you HAVE to do this or that and just make it more difficult.

But as i said earlier, fibre tax would need to be scrapped and the other ideas would come in useful.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
" Do you not understand that? " - don't waste your time, she's a single issue parrot and unless reprogrammed by her controller and fed new lies sorry *lines* can't deviate from the script.

"It is BT's own figures that admit a third of the country can't get even a basic service." - yeah right. A third of the LAND AREA perhaps, primarily that occupied by livestock and crops.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
Interesting that 88% of the people with money have home internet access. May be a better measure of availability without being tainted by affordability, literacy, etc.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
"76% of homes have a computer, and 73% of households now have an Internet connection."

That means about 96% of people with a computer have internet access, which seems to make broadband important lol

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm not sure how FTTC/FTTH should be funded in areas where it is not profitable for BT or any other ISP to supply it, but what shouldn't happen is that any ISP is forced to deploy something that won't make any profit or even worse make them a loss because just the Government wants them to
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
GMAN99: Agreed.

The government should pay for the areas which BT can't afford to put FTTC. FTTH is not needed that much right now.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
It is needed, just by a minority at the moment. The slow uptake of FTTC compared with the availability shows this. 80% of people in the UK just don't care about it being faster, they are quite happy with a 2Mb connection which loads up facebook.

My mother, lives in the sticks by very near an exchange, so should get about 6Mb. She currently has a fault and will only sync at 0.5Mb, she can't be bothered with the hassle of reporting it and getting it fixed as, as far as she is concerned, it still functions fine for what she needs.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
If they offered better monthly usage im sure it would take up fast, they have aimed for VM areas which can provide 50Mb true unlimited downloads... hardly a choice!
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Actually i've just looked at BT Infinity Option 2 (24.99 a month) it has unlimited downloads the FUP even says unlimited but subject to "Network Management" i.e. throttling. Overall its a good price/deal.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Yeah I think its 100Gb a month and then you are throttled in the evening
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
that for me seems fine and perfectly reasonable, so there must be another reason they ain't taking it up, maybe most of the customers are still tied to their contract or waiting for their own ISP to offer FTTC. hmm....
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Legolash2o - Reasonable for you, not for others, most just don't need the quicker speeds, have no interest in changing and don't see what benifit they will get for spending more cash.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Example - VM's 50Mb product, doesn't cost that much more than 10/20Mb, but you get a much quicker service, but how small is the uptake in comparison? And its got nothing to do with availability, everyone who is with VM Coax can get the 50Mb service if they want.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Hmmm, its what I feared to be honest.

1) A minority want superfast speeds
2) A minority want a decent speed (the final third) that a lot other people can already get
3) The majority are happy with what they have and don't want to pay any more than they do now

That's how I make it anyway
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
BT Inifinity Option 2 (£24.99)
Upto 40Mb Down
10Mb Up
Free installation
18month
unlimited (managed)
No Calls or BT Vision.

Virgin Media XXL £28
Upto 50Mb Down
1.5Mb up
£20 activation fee
12month, unlimited (managed), Calls (free weekends)
add £4 and get TV too.

Conclusion
----------------
VM has a better deal, less minimum contract, get calls too, about 1 pound more expensive, not fussed about upload speed. Anyone agree?
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Im sticking by what AndrueC said above they would of been better off starting off at the "final third" as they would benefit the most and see more reason to upgrade.

"Lack of take up on FTTC doesn't surprise me. The people it's targeted at least need it. If they were rolling it out in slow- and not- spots they'd see far higher take up."
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
oh and maybe the fact alot of people will still be in the contract term of there current ISP or waiting for their ISP to offer FTTC package.

Some people may be waiting for more ISPs in general to offer FTTC to try and get a good deal.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Surely early days for FTTC. I heard some cabinets were full.

Are the 'final third' in areas where the cabinets have low numbers of connections and hance high cost per customer? And for some cabinets it just would not be economic without external cash.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
i think its the cost of putting the fibre in place i.e. digging up roads to get it to villages, etc..

Dont forgot i bet alot of customers dont know what FTTC is, some people on low speeds where expecting big speed increases when ADSL2+ rolled out but yet they still sync at a few megabits faster, so maybe customers think there is no point in upgrading because they think they will still get slow speeds. Does that make sense? :P
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"not fussed about upload speed." Quite a few people are fussed these days though which makes FTTC attractive for some
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Many people dont even realise they have to contact their providers and advise they want to upgrade to ADSL2+.... too many think it just happens automatically.

What is needed for FTTC to pick up speed, is for all big providers (BT, Orange, O2 etc..) to roll it out and get some decent adverts that actually show the genuine benefits so that the people who want it, but don't follow tech news look into it, get it, and spread the word...
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
rather than the BT Infinity adverts which don't really tell you anything. The first one was nice, it spurred a little interest and curiosity, they should be following it up with something meaningful.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Yeah to pick up pace it needs BE and Sky to jump on board fast and then others to follow. This might come as a massive shock to some but... some people just don't like BT.. I know... I couldn't believe it either ;o)
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Photographic evidence otherwise I don't believe you! :)

There tends to be a few different kinds of people:

1. Those who follow tech, understand it (to an extent) and will be first adoptors if the package is worth it.

2. Those who sort of follow tech, don't understand it but want it for bragging rights and will definately be the first adoptors.

3. Those who don't follow tech, see adverts and maybe research it out of curiosity.

4. Those who are just happy with what they have.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
1. Realises the packages just aren't really worth it and are too restricted at the moment.

2. Are the folk who have FTTC/VM50Mb already and bitch it isn't in their area.

3. The ones that companies need to grab as they will fund the further roll-outs by getting things, and using word of mouth.

4. Waste of time :P
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"quote"They should had concentrated on giving FTTC to those that suffer with bad speeds and have done so for years.... They didnt though and this is the result."

So are you saying they should have started outside-in? i.e village's."

NO not villages specifically, plenty of inner citys and large towns suffer from poor speeds, it would had made sense to get them going first.
Posted by jtthedevil over 6 years ago
I did mention this a while ago that the majority of people who will get fibre first, already have sufficient speeds for what is available today.
Perhaps if you paid for the speed you actually get they could target areas where there is going to be more profit from big speed increases.
£5 per month up to 1MB
£7.50 up to 2MB
£10 up to 5MB
£15 up to 10MB
etc etc etc

Think the final third would suddenly become a lot more attractive to ISP's who could double their money, just getting people up to the national average.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Its also stupid at the same time to be supplying a large town with FTTC which has Virgin, and LLU options.... and then not doing the cabinets to surrounding areas 2-3 miles from the same exchange which have suffered for years without decent broadband..... Areas with poor speed do not always equal small villages or similar.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
A nice idea in theory jtthedevil but using your figures (and yes i know its only an example) People that only get 1Mb for £5 would complain those that pay £10 get 5Mb they would see it as fair that paying £10 gets you 2Mb.
If you are going to scale like that, you have to pay purely based on the actual Mbps if you wish to be totally fair.
Posted by jtthedevil over 6 years ago
Yes Carpetburn, was just a rough example. Would take minds greater than mine to work it out :@)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
It would have to be a fixed cost eg. £8 plus 3 or 4 bands for speed/download limit.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
To be realistic, you have to have some basis in actual costs. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by others many times before, the cost to supply someone with 1Mb is the same as supplying someone with 10Mb.

In fact, the persone on 1Mb is consuming a lot more copper cable etc, so is arguably more expensive to supply. Given this, who would want to provide someone with service if they eare at the end of a long line, which will happen in some areas even with FTTC?

Nice idea, but you'd see another digital divide emerge!
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Some inetresting comments comparing FTTC/P with cable, what about upload speeds? Even the current FTTC products offer upload speeds of 6+ times cable, with 15Mb already mentioned as coming next (ie 10x current cable upload).

Also, some throw away comments about max speeds available to anyone that wants it on a cable segment. Has anyone actually checked whether there is enough bandwidth on a coax segment supporting 1000+ households to sustain 50Mb/1.5Mb to all plus cable TV?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
NB Re second point, not saying you can't get 1000+ households all with 50/1.5Mb simultaneously as well as TV, don't know.

An informed view from someone that understands max capacity of coax properly appreciated.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
1000 houses with 50M connections will not have a 50G connection to the rest of world, surely?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@New_Londoner FTTC services are obviously currently the best in terms of upload speed a user can have. HOWEVER Its obviously not that important to home users. As an LLU user with only 1Mb upload i can honestly say i couldnt go back to an UPTO 8Mb service which delivers similar uprates, i seriously could not live with 8Mb speeds after having 17+Mb for so long. I cant think of anything where your average home user needs 10Mb or higher upload speeds, i estimate 90% of my net time (probably more) the down rate is far more important.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
My business and work in general though is another story entirely high upload speed would help there alot. HOWEVER... Sorry to say it, a BT FTTC connection probably wouldnt help me, without calculating things i know 40gig a month probably wouldnt be enough and 100gig would probably be playing it close. We upload and download large image files, CAD files and RAW sound files daily also have the odd video meeting, which can last 3+ hours. CONT...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Thats before i even think about peoples email and web use. SO yeah faster upload speeds great, (well for business atleast) usage caps just as much of a pain in the bottom for work as home use though.
BT FTTC has alot going for it, but not what people want in mass. Its overpriced compared to what a decent ADSL2+ line can give you, it has caps which no matter what your use high or low is always going to be something a business will worry about and something many home users dont want with faster speed.... Pointless having the speed if you are limited in being able to use it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
UPDATE:
Just seen this thread
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/f/3890896-usage-changes.html

If that turns out to be true, then well done BT :) (see i compliment them when they do something good).
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
That's great, it also says they provide a usage monitor tool :D

300GB :P overall this is brilliant news. Well done BT.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
In teresting point from Somerset, with cable is there potential for contention on the local loop as well as the backhaul? That would give FTTC a clear architectural advantage if true.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
WIth regards faster upload speeds in teh home, I find it a real bonus when working from home, I know others that use cload-based backup, upload photos and videos etc and find it much more suitable.

Makes video calls much better - high quality video at both ends, no buffering and audio/video in synch.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
You're right though that businesses get biggest benefit - I wouldn't envy you uploading CAD files at 0.5 or 1.5Mb!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
10Mb uprates are nice but really not needed for most home use. It would help my business alot though and if that new 300gig figure turns out to be true id consider it for work. Due to its location (no cable and even ADSL2+ only gives minor improvements over ADSL) its horrible dealing with some files... Just imagine having to regularly deal with say 10x 20Mb files at a time, its not fun :( CONT....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Comprressing them with .7z helps alot but that then leads to phonecalls from some clients asking how to un-compress them (Yes really some business still dont have 7zip or winrar installed). When i do work from home its not a big issue, rather than upload to work i just save it all on a 64gig usb pendrive and take it in.

I hope that new 300gig allowance turns out to be true and isnt just another BT support worker making things up, or stating what they think is true but turns out it isnt.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well if KerryG posted it I'd like to think its true, top news if it is.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I have no idea if the information that person gives out is reliable or not. I am in no way saying what they have said is un-true, but it seems like pretty big news (especially the usage checker thing BT users have waited years for that). Hopefully there will be an official announcement and this site will pick up on it.
A 300gig fibre product and usage checker would be a good official announcement for BT to make.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
The trouble is 100G was never official so I'm not sure how they'll announce it, maybe it'll be a "come clean" announcement ;)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Until it is confirmed in some way i do not see how it can be taken as gospel. I dont think it would do BT any harm to announce they allow 300gig, any HOME user not happy with that amount per month needs to seriously look at their internet use. My only concern would be they throttle everything you are likely to rack up 300gig doing.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@NJ:Re:local loop contention on cable. I did the sums once (I think I found the DOCSIS 3.0 specs for EU). My conclusion was that 50Mb/s should be no problem assuming 100 users per coax and 20:1 contention.

200Mb/s looked to me like it could become an issue if I remember correctly but would depend on take-up.

So it's a possible problem but I'd guess they have a decade before it's a real one.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.