Skip Navigation

Did the UK government just announce the biggest leap in broadband?
Monday 06 December 2010 06:25:17 by Sebastien Lahtinen

Shortly after coming into power the coalition government shifted the implementation date for the 2Mbps Universal Service Commitment from 2012 to 2015 in a move that upset broadband campaigners. The first Budget for the current government allocated £300m from the television license fee to the £230m already set aside from the surplus left in the digital switchover fund, and the option for a further £300m in the two years from 2015 to 2017 as required.

Current plans for next generation broadband should see two thirds of UK households receiving super-fast broadband with no government intervention with the 'final third' requiring additional funding assistance. It has been estimated that the cost of covering the remaining third with a fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) solution is between £2-3bn.

This morning, the government is announcing its strategy for addressing those gaps by combining public money and the concept of the 'big society' as a call to arms for communities to get involved. It is worth pointing out that at present this is still a plan, but we think it's nevertheless something to be excited about.

The announcements today cover a number of key areas:

  • Acknowledgement rural consumers should benefit from super-fast broadband "at the same time as more populated areas"
  • Funding of £530m available over life of the current parliament to help 'final third'
  • Align funding of 'universal service commitment' with next generation rollout
  • Use public sector procurement to advance broadband rollout where necessary.
  • New specification for new build homes to encourage developers and housebuilders to build super-fast-broadband-ready homes
  • Establishment of a 'digital village pump' (term used by broadband campaigners) to establish central point for delivery of fibre in remote areas
  • No changes planned to rating of fibre-optic networks (fibre tax)
  • Commitment to working with BT to open ducts and poles to rivals
  • Working with local authorities to reduce roll-out costs (guidance on street works and micro-trenching)
  • Awarding 800MHz and 2.6GHz spectrum for next generation mobile services

"The Government is committed to ensuring the rapid rollout of superfast broadband across the country. Rural and remote areas of the country should benefit from this infrastructure upgrade at the same time as more populated areas, ensuring that an acceptable level of broadband is delivered to those parts of the country that are currently excluded. [..]

Our aim is to ensure every community has a point to which fibre is delivered, capable of allowing the end connection to the consumer to be upgraded – either by communities themselves, or since this will make the business case more viable, industry itself might choose to extend the network to the premise."

Britain's Superfast Broadband Future, BIS/DCMS

Following on from the four BDUK trial roll-outs, a second wave of pilots with funding of up to £50m will take place. The areas will be selected from those which submit proposals in April 2011, with funding arriving in May 2011.

The buzz word today though is the 'Digital Hub' which will be a fibre supplying broadband to a single point in every community around the UK where commercial roll-outs have not provided some form of next generation access, which many campaigners have called 'the digital village pump'. This hub is described as being linked back to the nearest exchange, where onward connectivity should be available to existing backhaul networks. How the network is extended from this hub to individual premises is unclear, but more detail is expected to become available. What is known however, is that this 'last mile' link may use various different technologies from fibre or copper to wireless solutions. Satellite has not been ruled out for the most remote of communities.

As part of the broadband strategy, the government will use a framework to compare how well the UK is performing against other European countries. This will examine actual as well as headline speeds, coverage, price and choice of suppliers.

This announcement is certainly a welcome sign the UK government appreciates the importance of super-fast broadband being available to everyone, and we look forward to seeing more details on the trials.


Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
a response to this is on and
Posted by dustofnations over 6 years ago
I find it quaint that they're still not making any positive moves vis-à-vis fibre tax, particularly making it more equitable for non-incumbents. Perhaps those benefiting are lobbying to maintain the status-quo, or the government are desperate for the revenue-stream.

Seems somewhat silly to offer taxpayer money for fibre, then claw it back through tax whilst providing a disincentive to smaller players.

Posted by dustofnations over 6 years ago

Would be nice to see some sound figures on what they even define as "broadband" in the present, and by 2015. It is an extremely relative term, a fact most readers here are probably acutely attuned to. Perhaps even a formula that benchmarks us against similarly developed nations.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
There is a scoring forumla defined and the four categories laid out in the hefty document.

Best in Europe by 2015 is the goal.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Where is the document?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Let's hope as little as possible is wasted on these digital village pumps from the coalition of the clueless. Difficult to see the "villagers" delivering best in Europe by 2015.

I note from earlier stories that BT is passing around 100k homes each week with FTTC, which roughly equates to passing the population of Singapore each quarter (assuming 4 people per home). I doubt very much if our "villagers" will manage 100 homes per quarter.

Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Key to this is identifying every area/postcode in the UK and what is needed there.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
Words are easy. Actions cost money, and much of what Joe Public had paid in has been given to the banksters (including the so-called Irish bailout which actually is bailing out City bondholders and their mates, not Ireland).

Wrt actions: What happened to Vaizey's Dec 2nd mtg?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
If public money is as tight as is claimed, then value for money matters more than ever. I hope that as few as possible of my tax £s are wasted to pander to the vocal pressure groups that have yet to deliver anything worthwhile to substantiate their bold claims.
Posted by Pigmaster over 6 years ago
Sorry. I don't post much here but this latest item is pathetic.

To me superfast broardband is 1Gbps and that is delivered FTTH. Nothing else is worthwhile. Once FTTH is laid then even 10Gbp is possible down the same fibre but having FTTC is just going to provide 40Mb buy 2015/2017 at the absolute max which is ridiculous when BT's only big competitor is already delivering 50Mb now.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
The many fibre fetishists that say only FTTP will do need to provide answers to 2 key questions:

1. What do you need 1Gb for? Bear in mind how few of Virgin's customers take their 50Mb service, albeit that demand for FTTC seems to be rather stronger.

2. How much funding are you able to provide to build it? Demanding someone else builds it does not count, a national FTTP build will be in the region of £25bn (probably more for your 1Gb capability), which is a huge amopunt of investment for something with no proven market.

Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
In the meantime, my 40Mb service, upgradeable to 60-70Mb should be more than sufficient for some while yet.
Posted by gbswales over 6 years ago
Future thinking is needed and while 1Gb/s may sound uncecessary now - by 2020 who knows where technolgy may be. Could be that we will all be viewing cinematic 3D quality in our homes as a replacement for cinemas - maybe industry will have grasped the benefits of home working - broad band will never be too fast or too broad!
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Fine but 4Mb is sufficient for HD video. I'm not suggesting that nobody needs 1Gb, however the ability I have today to receive 10 simultaneous HD streams seems to allow a fair amount of room for expansion.

1Gb would give me around 256 HD streams! Even allowing for improvements beyond HD, I think this looks like overkill for now. The key question though if you think this is the killer application that warrants the investment is how you propose to source the funding?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
cd - at last you seem to be coming around to seeing (one of) the issues with Digital pumps, backhaul.

Not impressed by this announcement to be honest, Digital pumps are in scope (bad news) and Fibre Tax doesn't change (bad news)
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Meanwhile my 14Mb/s sync (11Mb/s throughput) is more than adequate. It wouldn't be brilliant for broadcast HDTV but I've had that via Sky for over a year now. VoD HD TV would be nice but with decent encoders you can squeeze that down 6Mb/s.

40Mb/s should be future proof enough for me and most people to last out the decade.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
(cont'd)I'm not against FTTH but I am against the idea that there is an RoI for 100% roll-out. Improving the not- and slow- spots is more sensible and for those it's a complex balancing act between cost, reliability and future proofing.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Strange how some people just latch on to numbers with no explanation or thought...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Its what politicians do best Somerset ;o)
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
@New_Londoner: Not everyone is satisfied with low bitrate 720p content. I have a 1080p TV personally. Blu-ray supports bitrate's up to 54Mbps for audio/video tracks. Why would should I settle for lower quality than that if I want the best experience possible? With FTTH I wouldn't have to.

You are looking at this from a 'my connection is this speed, what can I do with it' view-point rather than 'this is what I can currently do, what connection speed do I need'?
Posted by opticalgirl over 6 years ago
andrew, and where can we find this hefty document? is it on the web?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
john - should the government spend £29b.? What is this in the scale of things?

An FTTP rollout can only be done once in an area, would this replace ADSL for everyone?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Fair enough, but you can have a 100Mb connection to your home today (or 1Gb for that matter) if you're prepared to pay for it. A number of service providers will offer this using existing Openreach products - as used by many large businesses across the country.

Spending £25-£30bn simply to give everyone that wants it Blu-Ray quality video seems rather frivolous, to say the least! I don't believe any of the major broadcasters use anything like 54Mb for their HD channels.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Again, what's the requirement? You can download a video at any speed, does not have to be real time.
Posted by camieabz over 6 years ago
What is "super-fast broadband"?

Is it faster or slower than "ultra-fast"?

How about:


Lets just have all of the UK on 2 Meg minimum, with a target for all on 4 Meg minimum. Surely that's got to be the first step?

Posted by Paulrockhopper over 6 years ago
Go on then convince me that anybody needs a 1 gb connection, meantime the likes of me ( and many others ) live just 6 miles from a population centre of 35,000 people and count ourselves lucky to get a half a meg connection, despite running two rural businesses. Just what is anybody with a 25 mb connection downloading. Before you ask if bt bothered to ask me I would happily part with £100 pm for a 25 mb connection!
A street cabinet still won't get me more than about 5mb
And don't get me started on my licence fee paying for iplayer , who can't even provide a lower quality stream
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
superfast broadband is 100Mbps, Ultrafast is 1Gbps in my opinion. Both are delivered via FTTH.

The beauty of Superfast 100Mbps (FTTH) is that once the market needs 1Gbps it's easy to upgrade. The most important issue in my home is replacing the copper with fibre to easily upgrade to future speeds. cont....
Posted by rickw over 6 years ago
I am IN a population area of around 6 million - viz London - and last week Sky optimised my connection to get 1.4meg download.

BT don't want to know that this estate of over 700 dwelling and will not provide a FTTC service either now or planned as they say we are 'directly connected'. Since we are nearly 4km as the crow flies from the exchange (all FTTC enabled - Albert Dock) there is no chance of anything happening.

This announcement is just spin and spin and ...spin........

I thought we had enough of this waffle with the last lot Mr Hunt.

Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
FTTC 40-60Mbps is fine for todays needs and probably the needs in 2015, so 100% of FTTC in the country would be perfect.

Use public funds for FTTC and then BT Wholesale can put FTTP in the areas with demand using their own money...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
People seem to be focusing too much on speed, there are more benefits or FTTH.

I bet a lot of people would love to have a rock solid internet connection without disconnecting and im sure people would love low latency (~5ms ping).

FTTH bring more than just superfast speed.
Posted by 12eason over 6 years ago
Apparently they've only 'run out of money' for the unemployed, students and the disabled. If you're an Irish banker or you can afford to live in a nice rural setting, you can have billions in state funding. All for what? More tax evasion schemes for bankers and 1080p youtube vids for the toffs?
Posted by KarlAustin over 6 years ago
BT will be rubbing their hands with glee at this, basically BT are going to be the only affordable ones to be able to offer backhaul to the "digital village pumps", for everyone else the cost of business rates on the fibre will be as much as BT charge overall :(
Posted by Paulrockhopper over 6 years ago
Absolutely legolash2o , but unfortunately it appears the main instigators of this ie. Bt , and various politicians are looking at the headline speed all the time. How can a 1gb connection be good use of public money in the current climate , it's just designed to fool the world ( somewhat misguided) that as a country we are at the front of technological advancement.
Get everybody on 5mb min and then frankly if you do want blu-ray down a phone line then you have to pay for it
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
I see the Fibre Tax Fig Leaf returns. Beware of vested interests seeking to reduce their tax burden - what next - zero rating VAT on FTTH ? Employers NI exemption ?

FTTH costs a tenner a year per home connected in business rates payable, if an Alnet builds it and runs a long haul fibre to feed it. That's £10 per *year*. They can also go to the VOA and negotiate a different number if they can back it up.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
That's an "Altnet" sorry ie not one of the (several) companies paying fibre rates on a different basis.
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
Gosh, it's only 3 or 4 years ago that I was "ganged up" on by people here for suggesting that there should be a 2Mbps USO, with people saying no need for anything like fast bband (no demand for it and no profit in it) & I should sell my house & move elsewhere if I want anything more than 440Kbps or pay for the tech myself. Even my estimations of 2Mbps seem a little on the low side now. Putting comms infrastructure in the hands of the "market" means that the least work is done in order to get quick profit & it has be reworked later when found to be lacking.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
herdwick i personally wouldnt mind an extra 80p added onto my phone bill for fibre.

Another problem is that BT is charging more for their FTTC product than it is for its FTTH product.

FTTH £21.50pm 110Mbps
FTTC Option 1: £19.99 upto 40Mbps
FTTC Option 2: £24.99 upto 40Mbps
BT Total Broadband: £27.99 upto 24Mbps

Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Can someone please explain to me those prices...

ADSL (Total Broadband) 24Mbps should be around £20pm for that packagfe

FTTC should be £30(1)-40(2)

FTTH should be £50-60

Anyone agree, that would give them more profits to invest in the rest of the country and would be a fair price.

In my case. £28 TTPlus for 6.5Mbps, or 110Mps for £50-60, seems worth it to me and the slower the speed you have the more likely you would get it or am i just being stupid...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
correct me if im wrong but VMs 100Mbps service is going to be about £50pm so would be good competition to...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"People seem to be focusing too much on speed, there are more benefits or FTTH." Yep, its not just speed its also things like being able to pump HD TV down the same piece of fibre whilst leaving your internet bandwidth unaffected
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"BT is charging more for their FTTC product than it is for its FTTH product."

makes sense to me, kerbside electronics are basically a silly idea in the 21C and the maintenance cost of a pure FTTH network without copper will be a lot less. Also longer life.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
@Legolash2o Problem with your high price for high speed options are that not enough folks will buy them. Less than 100k users on VM 50M out of 4m.

Also link speed doesn't dictate cost of provision so an economic disconnect.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
Big fat doc at ie
Posted by opticalgirl over 6 years ago
To answer the question in the title.


This is just old policy news packaged for Christmas with pretty paper and a shiny bow.

It's still a lump of coal inside the package.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Where is the final third???
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
The final third is a moving target, and may not be a third either. It was defined as the proportion of the *population* (not land mass) that would not get next generation access through private sector activity.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
So if im reading this correct, they will put a digital village pump in every village and they are going to get BT to do it?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
<sarcastic summary>
All this hassle and cost just to let people watch HDTV.
</sarcastic summary>

Alternatively people can subscribe to Lovefilm /today/ and get BluRay discs in the post. Or Sky and get 50 HD channels within a week or so.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I'd love the idea of a decent HD-VoD offering. I'd even pay for it. But from what I can tell the majority of people aren't really interested.

For most people even timeshifting with a PVR is relatively uncommon. They use them like a VCR - recording stuff they can't watch live because of other commitments.

As for pay for it - hah. People can pay Sky or VM for HDTV and I think that market's largely sown up. Some people seem to think that IPTV means free content all of a sudden. Ha ha.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
been reading "Superfast: Is it worth a subsidy" at Andrue ?

2m addicted online gamers to "help the economy"
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"So if im reading this correct, they will put a digital village pump in every village and they are going to get BT to do it?" - I don't think BT are anything to do with it, "someone" would have to provide backhaul which could of course be BT.
Posted by wragby over 6 years ago
pros and cons discussed at
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago to be honest.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Interesting read wragby, but Trefor is misleading "Note that the residents of Ashby de la Launde already enjoy 100Mbps symmetrical FTTP with an upgrade path if necessary. My own view is that 100Mbps symmetrical is the minimum standard we should be aiming for. " - No Ashby enjoys 100Mbps SHARED for everyone, not per household. Meaning that FTTC should offer better speeds than the shared 100Mbps example given.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
CD - Your links are entertaining.

'*Community owned DVPs (Digital Village Pumps) that are connected to community owned fibre, connected to community owned, local peering points.'

Nothing is stopping communities from paying for them. You don't get to decide how other central government funded infrastructure is provided, I've no idea why this should be any different. If 'community' doesn't like the government's plans they can build the networks themselves with their own funds, simples.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
I do agree with this though:

'Public money, OUR money, being wasted building on top of an obsolete network'

Indeed - we in the city get what the market gives us, get rid of fibre taxes, open up the ducts and poles, and 'community' can offer their own incentives to companies to build the networks. The case for wholesale subsidy of NGA is breathtakingly thin on substance once the rhetoric is taken away. The problem being that for it to be of value the services need to be on the other end of the glass.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
cd - In your eyes what would you have preferred to have happened with this money?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
you can see where the commies are hiding when you read "The opportunity is simply this - to rebalance the terms of trade in favour of the customer by giving local communities the wherewithal to both make informed choices about how their future 1st mile network is owned and operated."

frankly WGAS, the "community" just wants low cost reliable services that do the job.
Posted by mervl over 6 years ago
No chance I think of the low cost bit. Do I see a missing link to make these proposals work: BT will in the future be released from its obligation to maintain the local loop from the cab: the consumer will pay both for the backhaul investment and the capital cost of the replacement for the local loop via this hyped digital pump. It's called clever marketing. Prepare for broadband with a several hundred £ upfront cost and an increased monthly subscription, but never mind those lagards who don't want/need a competitive speed or can't afford it! VFM?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
What exactly is a 'community' that will be deciding how broadband is supplied to them?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I've seen various reports both pro- and con- but to my mind things haven't really changed. My recommended minimum (what I'd specify for a USO) is gradually creeping up but right now it's still only 4Mb/s.

I never have bought into the argument that superfast broadband will bring huge economic benefits. The people capable of using fast connections to generate wealth have a business case and can get it right now.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
For everyone else it's a luxury. VoD would benefit from improvements. Possibly impatient gamers would benefit (but I downloaded 2.4GB of Tomb Raider two weeks ago in less than half an hour off a 14Mb/s sync).

A huge source of revenue? No. People won't pay any extra for online stuff. The opposite in fact. So all you can say for a decent connection is that it saves the enduser money which means /less/ benefit for the economy not more.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Do something about the areas with a poor connection but stop chasing raw speed. That's just 'willy waving' for governments and geeks. Not something my taxes should be spent on.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
@herdwick: "link speed doesn't dictate cost of provision"

In the absence of traffic management, maybe even with traffic management, faster last-mile speeds contribute towards higher infrastructure (backhaul etc) costs. Maybe it depends exactly what you mean by "cost of provision", but...
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago

"FTTH £21.50pm 110Mbps
FTTC Option 1: £19.99 upto 40Mbps
FTTC Option 2: £24.99 upto 40Mbps
BT Total Broadband: £27.99 upto 24Mbps"

I think the FTTH price is the Openreach price for the link, whereas the others are the prices for the BT Retail products? So not a like-for-like comparison between FTTC and FTTP.

Also, I thought Infinity Option 2 and Total Broadband Option 3 were the same price? Based on teh above, the latter is £3/month more expensive?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
@c_j sure it *contributes* something to backhaul costs, but not if your CP still provisions that at 150 kbits/s or something. A lot of the csots aren't affected by headline speed.

There are FTTC products with same GB/month as ADSL1 both will use the same backhaul capacity.
Posted by TGVrecord over 6 years ago
Did anyone else hear the Spoonerism on Radio 4 just before 8:00 when James Naughtie made an error announcing Jeremy Hunt who was due to be interviewed about the Government broadband plans? Made me laugh!
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
Well the argument for FTTH i think is justified,not because of the speeds but future proofing and because of the general condition of the cooper cables from the nearest cab to the home isn't up to the job, not just the quality of it but also it's susceptibility to outside noise etc from street lighting etc
Posted by infinidim over 6 years ago
My view is that FTTC and 'Digital Hub' would be the best options with various other technologies delivering it the last mile. Using this methodology then you can maximise the existing infrastructure that is already out there.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
the trouble is the cost, to get the fibre all the way to peoples homes and business in rural areas would cost massive amounts of money. in towns and other highly population density it might make more sence but would still would be more costly than Fttc.

If we look at Virgin they take up of 50Mb internet has not been small.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago

Most people don't need supper fast internet.

What would make more sense is as the "last mile" copper wire needs replacing putting fibre in then.

There is nothing stopping FTTP/H being deployed tomorrow except no one willing to pay the cost except for a few businesses who see the need for it.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
what I think would make the most sense and start the future proofing is if the government made all these companies that are building the new housing estates install fttp/h.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
I would get the developers and network operators (open reach and H2O) to share the cost 50/50. Virgin who don't allow anyone else to use their ducts/cables would have to foot the whole bill them selves.

Install the fibre at the same time as gas, water and electricity would make it dirt cheap (possibly cheaper the copper as its currently so expensive).
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
The only trouble would be when these estates are built in more rural area as the back-haul might be missing. My solution would be to limit the sytem to what the back-haul could support based on cost. As the back-hauls improved the infrastructure would be in place to take advantage of the increase in possible speeds.

I would do the same for estates in towns, as and when business wanted to offer FTTP/H product they could as the infrastructure would be there but until then limit their connection to the same as FTTC
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
damien - all new builds have telecom duct from pavement to wall of property so it's easy put in cables at any time.

A fibre only service needs a battery backup to the phone in event of power cut.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
"A fibre only service needs a battery backup to the phone in event of power cut."

Not really, everyone has mobile phones these days and/or the use the suggestion i mentioned the other day about having 2 AA rechargeable batteries in the modem where the house phone would plug into.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Yes really. No operator can assume that their customer has a cell phone.

Much as I'm sure that operators would be able to get way with a couple of AA batteries the backup required is somewhat more substantial than a couple of quid of Duracell.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
It has to power something like this -
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Yeah you need more than a few pencil batteries, plus you can't rely on mobile masts they also need power which might also be affected
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Yep same thing in a white plastic box and inside instead of being on an outside wall per Verizon. Verizon offer the battery backup because they are doing a full reclaimation of the copper, BT are not.

Check Ebbsfleet and other Greenfield GEA over FTTP documents for more information on this however - BT note the requirement for battery backup to provision voice services.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
"if your CP still provisions that at 150 kbits/s or something. A lot of the csots aren't affected by headline speed."

Hence the "traffic management" comment earlier. Any eejit ISP provisioning at today's speeds whilst connecting unmanaged customers at VDSL (let alone fibre) speeds is heading for trouble (or increased costs).

"mobile masts .. need power which might also be affected"

Lots of "fill in" cells rely on mains. Lose the mains and you lose those cells, just when everyone wants to use their phones. "Network busy" for all but a lucky few.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
@Somerset I know the ducts are in place on new builds, but that still has 3problems

1) only bt open reach and sometimes virgin ducts are put in place

2) sending someone in to put fibre in through ducts is still time consuming and major work (admittedly not as hard as if there was no ducts)

3) copper cost more than fibre, and having FTTP/H in place would encourage expansion and/or use of fttp therefore hopefull building the business case for fttp/h
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
1 - how many ducts do you want?

2 - who would pay for speculative installation of fibre and where would it go to?

3 - copper is needed now for basic phone until there is a standard product that gives broadband and battery backed up phone, which will come.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.