Skip Navigation

Openreach to offer 110Mbps fibre broadband from March 2011
Monday 18 October 2010 15:08:17 by John Hunt

With Virgin Media expected to announce a launch of 100Mbps broadband to its users before the year is out, BT Openreach have come forward with a new offering that will bring 110Mbps broadband to the country from March 2011. The new product, to be part of Openreach's Generic Ethernet Access (GEA) fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) options, will be available from £258 a year (£21.54 per month) at wholesale cost.

The figure of 110meg is a bit of a strange one, but is obviously an attempt to hamper Virgin's ability to market their new 100meg broadband as the fastest broadband service in the UK. With BT's fibre-to-the-home/premises services (FTTH/P) only being available on a small scale, Virgin will definitely have the lead on numbers of people who are able to connect at faster speeds. Whether people will actually opt for these new products is another question. Lets also not forget that Virgin are also currently undertaking trials of 200meg broadband so the speed-wars will not end here.


Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
Superb news for those that can get it, I just hope they leave it at that for now and they (both Virgin & BT) concentrate on making these speeds widely available. Its all well and good having a speed race with Virgin but I'd rather see better speeds to the masses than lightening speeds to the few.
Posted by Craig4646 over 7 years ago
I'm still waiting for ADSL2+. Isn't it time that Openreach try and complete rollouts of older technologies before jumping onto a new headline making technology?
Posted by Gamerwillz over 7 years ago
I agree, GMAN99, I'd prefer to see 50Mb nationwide than 110Mb in few areas.
Posted by dmarchant over 7 years ago
I would settle for 8Mb or even 20Mb if I could get it
Posted by RepairExpert over 7 years ago
Agree with both of you; can't see ADSL+ coming to my area in the near future. Get 6Mb off peak and down to 1Mb on a bad day at peak times.
Get the whole system updated so that everyone can get a reasonable speed before offering the chosen few ridiculously high (and for most applications unnecessary) speeds.
Posted by dmarchant over 7 years ago
I meant the 8Mb and 20Mb to be the other way round.
Posted by Rocklett over 7 years ago
The 110Mbps speed is not to compete with anyone, it was felt that an Ethernet line speed of 100Mbps would not allow anyone to reach a throughput speed of 100Mbps at the IP layer, whereas an increase to the Ethernet synch speed to 110Mbps should mean (dependant on the IP packet size) 100Mbps throughput could be achieved. You'll possibly see a similar development for the 40Mbps product.

I'll leave it for others to explain why there is a difference between IP and Ethernet throughput measurements.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
Its a good idea Rocklett, otherwise they'd be complaints that the 100Mb service can't even do 100Mb like you say overheads would mean it would fall short
Posted by rbmota over 7 years ago
Same situation here in Portugal. 100Mbps is standard in offerings (it costs 39,99€ from one of the ISPs, just for Internet) and 200Mbps is also available for 89,99€/month. But that's in the main cities, when fiber is available. For 24Mbps in ADSL2+, be sure to be in the center, otherwise...
Posted by AndrueC over 7 years ago
I must get me some of that because then I can..

..and of course there's...


Never mind.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
You'd have bragging rights Andrue surely? :)
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 7 years ago
Virgin Media already do a little of this, with the products connecting over the co-ax at a little higher than the product speed. To ensure ensure people can get as close to headline speed as possible.

If we waited for a speed to be available to 100%, then we'd be still waiting for V90 roll-out to complete.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
I'm all for it.... your average punter has no interest in headers or overheads and protocols, they just want to see they get the speed they saw on the advert.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
So I'm assuming it will still be marketed as 100Mbps? You just get 110Mbps?
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
A quick note that GPON doesn't have an Ethernet synch speed, it's rate limited from 2.488Gbps which is shared.

rbmota - here the capital city is getting virtually no fibre to home at all sadly. Odder still is that in a lot of the places they are deploying FTTP its' affordability is, well, doubtful.
Posted by EnglishRob over 7 years ago
In a way it reminds me of the episode of Alan Partridge (Watership Alan?) where it's arguing with the farmer...

Alan - "I bet I've got more friends than you have cows. Go on how many cows have you got?"

Farmer - "Ok then,I've got a hundred cows"

Alan - "I've got a hundred and four friends"

I wonder if Virgin will release 120Mbit broadband or something like that soon afterwards.

Personally I'm with the other folks, concentrate on bringing higher speeds to the masses rather than 110Mbit to a select few lucky folks who can get FTTP.

Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Adding 10% to the FTTP isn't doing much, the FTTP rollout is disappointingly minimal as a proportion of the FTTx deployment and it's just a configuration change.

Not that I'm annoyed that Cornwall, Hampshire, Liverpool and Manchester will have more fibre to homes than London, not at all ;)
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
People seem to forget that BT is a private company being raped by the government.

If they were left alone we'd most probably be in a better position.
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
Im just throwing this idea out there, but lets say your house does not have FTTH, is it possible that BT could install one and have a £200 install fee. Then if someone else wants FTTH they pay £200 install fee. So the fibre does not get installed until you want it, better than rolling it out and not having a gaurentee someone wants it. cont....
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
obviously this would be for cities and towns with villages being around £300. Its alot better than doing FTTH to a whole town of 10,000 people and only have 200 or so have FTTH. With the above method at least if you install 200 fibres you will have 200 customers on it (contract). What do people think, there would be abit more too it though.
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
Plusnet have been giving people free upgrades to FTTH as a trial, so lets do some maths....

40 million (uk population) people will eventually want FTTH

40m x £200 install fee (atleast £8bn)
40m x 12 x £30pm monthly fee (at least £14bn yearly income (before taxes)
total = £22bn

Shouldn't take long to get your investment back...
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Lego - So how many times do they dig a road up?
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 7 years ago
£22bn, minus tax, interest, wages, isp's taking their cut of the monthly rental etc. etc.
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 7 years ago

not openreach installing 21c/wbc/adsl2+ it's bt wholesale
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
@somerset, heard of ducts? Not everywhere has ducts though :(

Still quite alot of money..... How much does BT current make before taxes, etc..?
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
Does it cost £200 to install fibre to the home? BT charge £130 just to hook up a copper phoneline!

And 12 x £30 a month won't go to BT it will go to whoever the ISP is and a small portion of that would go on BT rental of the service (should they be renting it)
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
£200 was just an example, would more likely be £1000 lol.

Like myself i would be willing to pay £40-60+ a month for FTTH.
Posted by vm1990 over 7 years ago
Oo 110Mbit broadband :( id settle for 5Mbit and i dont even live in the countryside BT need to pull there fingure out and sort the people with sucky speed out. plan of action anyone with more than 10Mbit can wait anyone with lower than 10Mbit should get the new 110Mbit :)
Posted by Legolash2o over 7 years ago
Yeah seems fair to have lower speeds done first and make actually make more profit as they are more willing to pay for 110Mbps than a user who already gets 40-50Mbps
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

England & Wales - ~55m people (~20m homes).

18% have broadband, that's 5m max homes.

Bring the cost to £1bn (130x5m) for FTTC.

Remember BT also has to cover the cost of competition as they subsidise them.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
Make that 24% have broadband.

My bad, so maybe an extra 1m max homes.
Posted by whatever2 over 7 years ago
i wouldn't get all wet about it, it's 110 at peak, and the rest of the time 20 'prioritised' (whatever that actually means)... the 15 upload is a nice addition, but as ever it will only be a headline grabbing speed and the reality could be somewhat different.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 7 years ago
Guess what when speedtest averages are published for the countries we all believe have 100Meg and 1Gig that results are no where near these numbers.
Posted by Rocklett over 7 years ago
Gmann said "So I'm assuming it will still be marketed as 100Mbps? You just get 110Mbps?"

It will be up to the ISP how they market it and which variant they buy. Another thing to consider, if the NTE Ethernet termination has to pass 110Mbps then the WAN port on your router needs to be GigE, which is another reason Openreach are going to offer ISPs both speeds.
Posted by alewis over 7 years ago
The sync speed is irrelevant. BT/ISPs will still cap you at 0.02% of your potential bandwidth anyway. Doubt me? Do the sums on any given ISP, the monthly potential bandwidth at 8 and 20mb, and the cap as a %... Yep, you'll be able to hit your limit in 50mins rather than 3 hours :-)
Posted by TheGuv over 7 years ago
Will be interesting to see how caps are implemented in the future. 100mb will blow things out of the water.

Mind you - the reality is that BT are doing this for VOD and potential linear TV broadcast so you can pretty much half the bandwidth available from the outset.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
otester where did you get that 24% have broadband? You're confusing subscriber numbers - these are quoted in terms of the amount of homes served, not individual people.

Over 70% of the country have a broadband service, BT alone have over 15 million lines.

High penetration of services is very desirable, the cost per home passed with next generation stuff is best spread between as many subscribers as possible.
Posted by nyarla over 7 years ago
I`d be happy to get 2 Meg. Half a meg is good round here. Sort out the crappy areas before rolling out super fast in London.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
It's not London that's getting the 110Mbps. Crappy areas are rarely big money makers.

alewis - the sync speed is very relevant, some people have no interest in downloading the internet every month. Caps are irrelevant unless you reach them, sync speeds are relevant every time you download or upload something.

If you want 8 or 20Mbps all to yourself pay for it, as it is our services are shared which si why they're so cheap.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
RepairExpert - if we did a lowest common denominator service where no-one gets to go faster until everyone has something we'd probably not even be up to ADSL2+ yet.

The costs of rolling services out to different areas are massively different, it's appropriate that the products offered and their prices reflect that.

It should be noted you're a customer of the worst ADSL ISP in the country, Virgin, so your performance reflects their massive oversubscription.
Posted by spetznaz over 7 years ago
Further widening the digital divide... Drop the trident replacement and FTTH the UK.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
Nuclear deterrent vs FTTH, lol I'll stick with the nukes
Posted by mickyboy over 7 years ago
I do not comment much on here or any where else but the ISP'S go about putting there speeds up but where does the fair user policy come into it i am with Virginmedia and have always been happy with them but i do not down load much and am on the 50meg service but when they go on bout putting speeds up and saying there unlimited well sorry they need to read a dictionary to be honest.
Yes i am lucky to afford this but when they keep offering faster speeds then capping joe public someone has got to think what are they doing.Would love to any one elses comments
Posted by mattbibby over 7 years ago

Just shows the worrying state of the country's common sense.

Super Fast Facebook vs. Nuclear Deterrent

Err... Facebook for the win!

Really....? No... Really.......? Wait.... Your Serious?
Posted by GraceCourt over 7 years ago
I did try to resist posting this, because no doubt readers of this site probably tire of this sort of comment, but in the end gave in...

The hotel/restaurant up the road manages on 256kbps broadband... their neighbours get nada bps, no broadband at all. We are putting together a Research Committee to develop a new protocol for IP over wet string...

Posted by djfunny007 over 7 years ago
BT call me yesterday before he says he is offering 110 mbps Fibre Optic broadband if i want to switch to them now. i them bugger off i am happy with my 02 /be broadband. BT is a RIPPER?
Posted by brybhoy over 7 years ago
Funny how in china they actually put all this in place 20 years ago, with a simple satalite and to be honest my friend lives there and says it takes 2 minites to download any film ect. This new BT offer is a joke as where are the fibre opyic cable-guys installing as we all know it's the best way for good broadband or are they just tapping into virgins fibre optics already in place . Which was Telewest before so really how slow is not so GREAT BRITAIN.
Posted by brybhoy over 7 years ago
No wonder when mobile's came on to the market place B.T lost a hell of a lot of customers, as for years they actually were getting away with having everyone on there service until others realised they could buy in to B.T . And now they are so desperate to get everyone under the very expencive brolly, but to be deadly honest i would not touch them with any of my hard earned wage, although saying that there 02 is very good on payg with great offers and free sims on mostly evry site you hit so why charge large amounts of cash to get B.T installed like virgin media.
Posted by New_Londoner over 7 years ago
@brybhoy "why charge large amounts of cash to get B.T installed like virgin media. "

Perhaps because the average 3G speed in the UK is approx 1.1Mbps vs. > 5Mbps on fixed line broadband, and with the gap widening as more FTTC/P become available. Why pay more for slow speeds, very low usage caps and very high prices for download MB?

Mobile is great if you are actually mobile (clue in name), fine if fixed line not available but otherwise....
Posted by New_Londoner over 7 years ago
@brybhoy "in china they actually put all this in place 20 years ago, with a simple satalite and to be honest my friend lives there and says it takes 2 minites to download any film etc"

Satellite is great to give coverage to sparly populated areas, very poor at delivery to large numbers of people. I doubt very much that a 20 year old satellite (pre-broadband) can do what you've described, and certainly not to the 1.x billion people in China!

Either an urban myth or some important detail is missing.
Posted by gobbybobby over 7 years ago

Satalight Broadband has downsides. It gives very hi pings making video calling, gaming and other applications that require quick responces unusable. And while you may have 100meg satalight link, it would feel slower becuase it takes longer to send requests and connect to servers ETC.
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
funny stuff, VM trialling 200mbit when some areas cannot handle 10mbit, and BT rolling out 110mbit when some of their areas cant even sync at 1mbit on adsl.
Posted by AndrueC over 7 years ago
Satellite is good for broadcasting the same information to large numbers of people and useful for getting a service to remote areas.

Unfortunately their bandwidth is shared across their entire footprint. A satellite with a downlink of 1Gb/s sounds excellent but if it's shared by 10,000 people that's an average of 1Mb/s per person.

It's the difference between a one to one conversation in a private room and trying to talk to an entire room of people.
Posted by Delboy0754 over 7 years ago
It's the UPTO that's the reality. Once you sign up, you usually get FAR LESS.
Posted by rickw over 7 years ago
I'm in London next to City Airport and I can only get 1M and its been like that since the estate was built.
Our managing agents say BT will not do anything.
Can that be true??
Posted by PeteK over 7 years ago
But it does mean they break the 100meg por requirement which puts the hardware capable of faster speeds at a later date. Can't be a bad thing - although I wonder how many are actually going to be over the moon paying £3k for a router that can actually use it. And before you all start banging on about your Draytek having gig ports that does not mean it can route it.....
Posted by bain72pc over 7 years ago
Posted by GMAN99 7 days ago
Superb news for those that can get it, I just hope they leave it at that for now and they (both Virgin & BT) concentrate on making these speeds widely available.

I agree with this comment but unfortunately it's a pipe dream, the last thing BT can provide is large swathes of the population with fast broadband it's all about money. I am less than 3 miles away from the exchange but I might as well be 300 miles away with a maximum of 1.7meg oh what I'de give just to have 10meg far less 100 plus. Stupid really!
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
Nuclear deterrent versus FTTH? It's a no brainer - people would actually USE FTTH! I don't think I'd want to be associated with using the other.
Posted by New_Londoner over 7 years ago
@rickw "I'm in London next to City Airport..."

Assuming that you're connected to Albert Dock exchange (?) then you should have FTTC very soon if not already I think? Whether or not your managing agent let's you access it is another matter of course.....
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.