Skip Navigation


Rutland Telecom to deploy fibre to Hambleton village
Friday 10 December 2010 15:56:26 by John Hunt

Hambleton Village, located on a peninsula in the middle of Rutland Water, will be the first rural village in the UK to receive a full future-proofed fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) broadband solution. Rutland Telecom, who deployed a fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) solution in the rural village of Lyddington last year, have announced today that their first complete fibre solution, with fibre optic cables installed directly into homes and businesses (FTTP), will go live in Spring 2011 following the advanced signup of over £250,000 of private investment.

Over 60% of the village have registered for the service where current broadband speeds average 0.7 Mbps and they will see speeds increase to 50meg. The infrastructure being used by Rutland Telecom will see a full point-to-point fibre link deployed between premisses and the fibre cabinet deployed in the village. FTTH deployments by BT currently use GPON which passively joins multiple fibres on to a single fibre which reduces the amount of fibre needed for backhaul, but can limit future services that are available. With the solution being installed in Hambleton, faster services can easily be deployed through the use of different wavelengths on the fibre for sending data. Rutland Telecom are using GEO for their fibre build.

Two packages are available for customers in the area. A residential product offers 50meg broadband with a 5meg upload speed and 25GB usage allowance for £50 per month on a 12 month contract. A business package of symmetrical 50meg (that's 50meg upload and download) with a 250GB usage allowance and lower contention will cost £100 per month on a 12 month contract. No setup fee is chargeable for those who signed up before the 1st of December although a minimum connection fee will apply of £1000+VAT subject to survey (costing a further £150) for any new orders. These will also be restricted by civil works and will likely only go forward once at least 3 or 4 premises want to be connected.

Whilst the costs are not cheap, they are not dissimilar to the costs that Virgin initially charged for their 50meg broadband when this was first launched (£51 per month), although Rutland Telecom do have a usage limit on the product. Of course, living in a rural area increases the costs of receiving services, and the high costs have obviously not dissuaded too many from signing up. Many I'm sure will be thankful to finally receive a fast Internet service.

Further details are available from the Rutland Telecom FTTP webpage.

Comments

Posted by KarlAustin over 6 years ago
Nice to see a full p-2-p service going in, never been a fan of GPON personally.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Wow... £50 a month WITH a low usage limit, that would put most customers off. Never mind the grand connection fee (which could be more).
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Good to see 60% registering. The costs show what's involved in this sort of thing.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
This is a model that won't be replicated in too many other places due to the cost.

Hambledon evidently have a fair amount of wealth to have so many people able to afford those kind of prices for those level of bandwidth caps not to mention the 250k initial costs.

This is for a solution where the only retailer is Rutland too.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Yep, fixed in, no wholesale which is why I think people like Rutland doing pumps isn't such a hot idea for the consumer, but some are just blinded by the fact its fibre without thinking about costs/competition etc.
Posted by opticalgirl over 6 years ago
I read this that the initial sign-ups pay £0 installation, only late sign-ups pay for the survey/installation.

Also,not sure you've got the technology side of the story straight. Point to point fibre can still use GPON equipment, but with the splitters located next to the equipment in the POP/exchange... although Rutland doesn't say what they are using, 50/5 Mbps sounds quite GPON-like to me.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Early sign-ups - looks like they had to register prior to 1st December get the free install.

Usage is £1/GB above the 25GB allowance. Not sure if this is a top-up system, or automatic billing. Given a PS3 HD film is 8GB it could get very expensive very quick if children have a games console in their room.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
opticalgirl, its already too late - "*We are still accepting registrations but the offer of free connection has now been withdrawn."
Posted by SheepFarmer over 6 years ago
This is all good positive news. There's always some who will try to put a negative spin on it with no wholesale access and higher monthly costs, but I don't think many people expected anything else.

Living in rural areas means services cost more. For example we're not on mains sewage, but we don't demand we pay the same as those who are for it to be collected by lorry. I don't think any of my neighbours would mind paying more for a good service, it's what we're used to.
Posted by opticalgirl over 6 years ago
there's still a choice of services - if they don't want to pay £50 a month, they could go back to BT or buy a satellite dish...
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Indeed. I think this goes to show that if you want a full-fibre solution that is future-proofed in a rural area, this may cost more. If a cabinet solution was do-able, this would have cost less as a cheaper backhaul would have been an option and there are less civil works digging up the road.
Posted by spetznaz over 6 years ago
I would love to have this in my village. Is it really that expensive?, Sky costs me about £60pm with multiroom and HD. I'm just hoping I'm in the 90% for 'digital pumps' (We all know that means FTTC from BT?).

Posted by m0aur over 6 years ago
Many are happy to pay £50 or more to crooks like Sky. A fast broadband connection will do all that Sky will and much more for no extra cost.
Posted by krazykizza over 6 years ago
Are Rutland telecom trying to take the pee? £50 for 25GB?! £2 per GB... what the! I pay 33p per GB on WBC.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Its not a negative spin Sheepfarmer its a fact. It is expensive and your choice of ISP is one. If people in that area can afford it that's great, I'm not sure other villages will be so keen. I don't think the costs are unrealistic either for installation etc, I'm saying that people in this country are used to paying next to nothing for broadband, this is a big leap.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
They would be better off just doing FTTC, alot cheaper. No point spending £250k just for 50d/5u when FTTC can do 40d/15u although VDSL2+ can e symmetrical.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
For that to work (40/10), with one cabinet (assuming there is one - not all villages have one) then all the houses would have to be virtually on top of one another clustered around it, if one house is a mile away, then that's another cabinet needed, then another cabinet, and so on...

I'd quite happily pay £50pm for 50Mbps and 25GB/mo, and if this were available here, I'd go for the £100/mo option.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Ashby village went live with fibre to the home last month? They are on 100megabit already, at £30 a month.
£50 a month isn't that expensive for FTTH, you can get rid of your sky dish, tv antenna and phone line, and get mobile coverage improved with femtocells too. Cheap.
Good on Rutland, and congratulations to Hambleton for choosing a futureproof solution over crappy copper cabinets.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Ashby village went live with fibre to the home last month? They are on 100megabit already, at £30 a month." - Shared cd, 100meg "shared" and it will be over 180 household sharing it, its not 100meg to EACH house. How can you get rid of your Sky dish etc, who is providing fibre TV?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Mark, would you pay that install cost tho that's the thing that will put a lot of people off, its a big investment and its £1150 straight off and could be more depending on the outcome of the survey
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
GMAN99, it would suit me. people in my village are paying up to £23.99 to share a 1meg connection with up to 400 others via various ISPs. none can do much at peak times. The ones on the more expensive connections are usually a bit faster, but the ones on the cheaper ones are sluggish all day. I take it you are on a leased line? Contention on copper is a joke.What will the contention on cabinets be? (and don't give me all the crap about your line being uncontended, that is only to the exchange)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - how do you get rid of a Sky dish, TV aerial and phone line?

Sports in HD and phone working during a power cut???
Posted by NuttyMucker over 6 years ago
I personally think its a great start for not spot areas to get a service they want instead of relying on a inadequate service on copper.
Not sure if I would be happy with a 25GB monthly limit though and would have some explaining to the wife for installation costs but if I was offered this I would probably sign up.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - There is no contention on copper. Please explain about contention beyond the exchange with figures.

Why don't you increase the size of the 1M link?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Contention is contention cd which you don't seem to understand, you can get contention on copper, coax and fibre. There will always be a choke point in the network.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Its all down to the amount of backhaul the ISP has bought, your just so stuck on this copper rant that facts seem to be irrelevant
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Rutland say: The service will be future-proofed because customers will have fibre-optic links all the way to London and so unlimited speed increases are possible in the future.

Not unlike any other network...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
25Gb is very tight yes Nuttymucker, especially when they are touting:-

"Experience seamless video conferencing, HDTV, 3DTV - whatever the internet offer"

25Gb will be gobbled up in no time and your into your £1 per extra gig you use.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
And there's VAT to go on the install price :( missed that. Would you go for this then cd or where you saying the Ashby set-up would do you?
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
It's great they have fibre but the retail offering is utterly awful. Expensive, limited, makes the speed largely pointless.

CD people have tried so many times to explain contention to you, I'm unsure what the issue is. You do have a mind of your own I take it? I have to ask as every comment you make here is regurgitating something you read on one of the blogs or campaign sites you frequent.

Copper is zero contention up to DSLAM / MSAN CD - dedicated point to point connection.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
'Living in rural areas means services cost more.'

You have an apparently quite rare point of view there Sheepfarmer given the way someone people complain because they, living in the arse end of nowhere, can't get services at the same price as someone in the middle of London.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
What speed is the connection out of Hambleton?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
ISPreview says they are getting 1G, can't even read their own article.
Posted by neilxyz over 6 years ago
Having a limit of 25gb kind of removes the advantages of having high speed broadband.

The main use of the higher speeds will be video on demand etc. people will be reaching their limit way before the end of the month and at £50 a month how many will be prepared to pay an extra £1 per GB?

Posted by spetznaz over 6 years ago
"Copper is zero contention up to DSLAM / MSAN CD - dedicated point to point connection"

Forgive my ignorance, but does it matter?, a lot of BT exchanges have capacity issues anyway, is that not contention by another name?.
Posted by FibreGuy over 6 years ago
@spetznaz - you are absolutely right that service is only as fast as its weakest link.

Where GMAN99 slightly misses the point is that contention is dependent on more than just number of connections sharing - instantaneous utilisation is the real driver and that depends on the aggregate of individual usage patterns.

On the NextGenUs UK CIC Ashby FttH network, folks can have 100Mbps dedicated to themselves 24 x 7 - it is just that most folks can't afford the backhaul cost!
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
A minimum £1380 for installation, it's the digging that's expensive.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Where GMAN99 slightly misses the point is that contention is dependent on more than just number of connections sharing" - But that this the main one, its quite hard to accurately map usage patterns
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
spetznaz, I think somersets point was that cd seems to think copper alone is the reason for contention, when in fact it isn't. She seems to think that if you replace copper with fibre contention disappears, when in fact unless you radically change the backhaul and transit/core it gets worse.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Gman99 I did actually state that the contention isn't on the copper phone line itself. it is on the equipment in the exchanges the phone line connects to and the backhaul the isp has purchased. its because its going through the phone network which simply isn't up to the job any more. In Ashby they have 100 meg straight to the ether for themselves. luvly.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"In Ashby they have 100 meg straight to the ether for themselves. luvly. " - shared, plenty of scope for contention right there.

Contention is nothing at all to do with "the phone network"
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
CD, please just shut up. sorry. but u have no idea what u are talking about!
ALL adsl services have nothing to do with the phone network at the exchange. NOTHING. ALL adsl services use fibre from the dslam and then it all depends on the ISP, LLU BTWS 20 or 21cn where and how it go's on from there. the only thing that affects contection is money. how much the isp wants to invest in backhaul
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
copper local loop is not as evil as u think, and just shoving a bit of fibre somewhere does not fix all problems. the reason this fibre service has a awful limit of 25gb pm is all to do with money and backhaul. and it's full ftth. SEE, fibre does not make everything ok.
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
i have told you this before, more than once, i remember one post you made where you claimed adsl is on copper from exchanges to "internet",,,ffs, even phone lines don't use copper from exchanges anymore, welcome to the late 80's.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
'On the NextGenUs UK CIC Ashby FttH network, folks can have 100Mbps dedicated to themselves 24 x 7 - it is just that most folks can't afford the backhaul cost!'

Which is different to anywhere else how exactly? 100Mbps leased lines are not unique to Ashby.

Quote of this discussion though..

'£50 a month isn't that expensive for FTTH, you can get rid of your sky dish'

Not with 25GB/month and £1/GB overage charge you can't.

Fibre - great. Costs appalling, retail offering appalling and no competition.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Sounds a bit ****.

Surely if you have a house that big you could negotiate your own contract with them to get a better usage allowance...
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
How much data is 1 hour of eg, BBC1 HD? If it was available on line.

If it's 10Mbits/sec that's about 3Gbytes/hour isn't it?
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
@Somerset

Minimum requirements for BBC HD content is 3.5Mbps which is normal for 720p content.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
1.575GB/hour FYI.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
£250k - wow ! Concorde flies again. Or maybe that's not all for this project ?

There are 16 addresses in one postcode at Hambleton and 39 in the other. 55 total, 34 (?) sign ups, over 7 grand each if it's £250k. Impressive, in a bad way.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
otester - thanks.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
AAISP quote £4,187.00 to install a 100mbit dedicated "internet access" feed to an address in Hambleton Village, so perhaps that tells you something. For what it's worth, 25GB on a 50mbit connection works out to around 135 seconds of use a day.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
"There's no competition" - yes, there is. ADSL maybe, might be rubbish, but it's an alternative if available. 3G if available. Satellite. The installation costs don't compare too badly with the latter. Yes, I would pay £1k to get it installed if it's FTTH, though not FTTC @ 5Mbps. I live in a rural area. While the residential cost is a little high, the business package on the other hand is a bit of a steal at that price.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
There's the "village pump" idea with people running their own fibre and digging themselves, or, pay someone to do that for you. Would be lovely to offer the option of both but I'm not convinced the DIY option isn't going to be a bit of a disaster and the take-up maybe even worse than the "I'll give someone a grand to do it for me" - depends on you, really :-)
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@cd:"you can get rid of your sky dish". Really? All the channels available through their system are available over the Internet now? In HD? Tell me how and where.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
..and assuming they are available (lol) tell me what their ISP thinks of people streaming at 12Mb/s for four or five hours straight in the evenings.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@otester@3.5Mb/s is not HD. That's BBC's iPlayer which is *not* HD no matter what they say. Their HD channel is about 10Mb/s. That's generally considered to be the minimum possible with today's encoders and considered to be one of the worst examples of HD available. Most channels on the Sky platform broadcast around 12Mb/s which seems to be considered 'reasonable'.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
@AndrueC

If you download HDTV off the net (Usenet etc.) you will find the encoding keeps the quality very close to the source but at much reduced size, 5Mbps max. for 720p, 15Mbps max for 1080p.

Mainstream versions like VM/Sky etc. will be higher.
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
i can only see village pumps viable if they hook up to a wi-max or similar system. few people at present want to pay the money required or do the work to turn it fttc. also, any1 know what size connection these "pumps" will have?
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
sorry, meant fttp/h
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@otester:I can't make sense of your response. At first you seem to be agreeing with me since Sky channels are all 1080i it fits in nicely.

But then you end with 'VM/Sky will be higher'. I don't understand that comment. We know what bitrate Sky channels use because transponder usage is published on the web.

Like I said:most channels are 12Mb/s. BBC HD is unusual in attempting to get away with 10Mb/s although these days both channels are actually statmuxed so the bitrate will vary.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
otester - the statement implied that people could cancel their Sky subscription and receive equivalent (eg HD) quality over a broadband connection. The question is what data rate is needed. Does a program off Usenet look identical to an off air picture on a 40" TV?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
It ought to be possible to encode broadcast quality HD down to 5Mb/s by now. Luxe HD has been broadcasting at 5.5Mb/s for a while and is actually recognised as amongst the best.

However Luxe is just a shopping channel for rich people so it never shows action shots and likely has crazy expensive production values. I doubt those techniques could be applied to more generic TV and film fare.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Update:

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dbr.php?link=0&mux=10847&pid=6941&live=69&note=0&lang=en

So BBC HD is hovering between 4.1Mb/s and 9.7Mb/s.

And as I noted - that's a channel that people complain about from a broadcaster that ought to know what it's doing.

So spare me HDTV at 5Mb/s please :)
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
So I dunno. Maybe if you run modern encoders for longer or do multiple passes you can get decent quality action shots down to 5Mb/s. Trouble is that sounds like it's going to cost money and I've yet to find anyone in the movie/TV industry that puts quality ahead of profit.

Would be good to see some examples from you. If they're legal of course.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
@AndrueC

Don't confuse 1080i with 1080p, two very different animals.

Free rencoders can do it if you know what you're doing, done it before - movies can take up to 24 hours to re-encode.

If you want examples go look for 720p rips on the torrent/Usenet networks.


@Somerset

You won't notice the difference between official and a Usenet/Torrent version if it has been rencoded properly (which the majority are).

Many movie nights at uni with friends, only ever heard good things in regards to quality and we had Sky HD as well (live sports) to compare with.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@Otester:Right, so that confirms what I thought. You can reduce bandwidth requirements if you spend a lot of time encoding. So - if the item you want to watch is already in a library the demands aren't too bad.

Unfortunately that doesn't help normal broadcasters and probably explains why they struggle to get bandwidth down below 10Mb/s.

Not surprising really - if broadcasters could do it they'd be doing it. A lot of them (esp. the FTA ones eg;the big 5 in the UK) are struggling for space on Astra 2D.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@Otester:Right, so that confirms what I thought. You can reduce bandwidth requirements if you spend a lot of time encoding. So - if the item you want to watch is already in a library the demands aren't too bad.

Unfortunately that doesn't help normal broadcasters and probably explains why they struggle to get bandwidth down below 10Mb/s.

Not surprising really - if broadcasters could do it they'd be doing it. A lot of them (esp. the FTA ones eg;the big 5 in the UK) are struggling for space on Astra 2D.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
So in summary - cd's assertion that you can get rid of your Sky dish is not true. Not for the foreseeable future anyway.

Furthermore VoD is going to require that the distributors put some effort into encoding. They won't just be able to use standard broadcasting encoders - at least for a while.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
If you get rid of Sky, then to receive similar quality video it is either encourage, copyright violation via the P2P networks, or buy HD material at 8GB and £4.50 a pop from say PS3.

LoveFilm is only SD quality.

Posted by opticalgirl over 6 years ago
by the time the network is ready, YouView might be here - wonder if that will be a viable alternative to Sky.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I've watched a couple of films via the PS3 LoveFilm service and it's not too bad actually. I wouldn't use it for anything on my rental list but the quality is good enough for re-watching a film or if you just want something to see to kill a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
To those saying it's too expensive...

I would be MORE than willing to pay £50 per month for 50Mbps FTTH. Having been paying £18-£23 over the last 6 years for an average of 256Kbps, sometimes with no service at all for weeks at a time.

Once the system is installed, prices will eventually come down, as they did with ADSL.
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
...and it's future-proof.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Once the system is installed, prices will eventually come down, as they did with ADSL."

Why? why would they come down - because of competition? There is none in that area for those speeds. So are you willing to pay the £1300 (plus) installation costs?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
We know from VM's 50M service that £50/month is a massive barrier to takeup, even without an installation charge. £35/month is more than the majority will pay.

My query is whether this is a viable economic model for others to adopt or to be considered a solution for the UK's ambitions. If the provider is spending 6 grand up front and getting 600 a year revenue before running costs then.... ?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'd expect you may find that a minority of people in a minority of areas who have no decent broadband *might* stump up these installation charges. But if the question is, will people across the UK pay over £1300 for a FTTH installation and £50 per month for capped usage, well its barely worth asking the question, its so obviously no.
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
@GMAN99

The installation cost is very high, yes, but I would seriously consider it. The only other option is satellite, also with a high installation cost, similar monthly charges, but with all the limitations of a satellite connection. People "across the UK" with no service or a very slow and/or flaky service *will* consider it, as the people of Hambleton have proved. "the high costs have obviously not dissuaded too many from signing up". It's not necessarily the absolute 50Mbps that is attracting people, it's a stable and relatively fast service.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Without meaning to sound off do you think Hambleton Village is a fair representative of your average homeowner in the UK? It looks.. well.. quite posh.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
@csimon £299 setup and £25 per month for 2 way satellite to solve a notspot. Not the same service as FTTH obviously, but half the monthly cost.

Perhaps we're overlooking the "pre publicity" local signups who aren't paying the installation fee at Hambleton. I suspect some businesses are the "anchor tenants" that make it work.

Is it viable elsewhere ?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Good point herdwick, out of the 60% sign-up how many are paying the install fee?

Probably none which makes it a lot more attractive.
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
@herdwick. No doubt there is a variation in satellite providers, but looking at Tariam's Tooway system for example, it's £299 & £24.99 per month. But it's also £30 connection fee, plus installation. Total cost £570 if you use Tariam's installation. In my case, it's another £120+ approx (?) for planning permission for a second dish as satellite is my only option for TV too. So that's a total of £700 for installation. The £25 per month gets you 3.6Mbps with a cap of 2.4GB. You can upgrade to a 12GB allowance for £100 per month. No, you're right, it's not the same service as FTTH at all!
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
You can do the math - on installation cost, FTTH is £26 per mbps, satellite is £194 per mbps. On monthly charge, FTTH is £1 per mbps, satellite is £6.94 per mbps. You could also factor in the cost per MB of download limit. If someone is "rich" enough to get satellite with all its limitations, it's not a huge step to go for FTTH. If the two options were available, would most choose satellite? Why have Hambleton said Yes over satellite?
Posted by csimon over 6 years ago
At the moment, I'm paying £56 per month per mbps via ADSL!!
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Actually regarding satellite your all wrong, it isn't a cap, they only guarantee bandwidth for that amount of usage.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
@csimon - you have Index Syndrome, dividing one thing by another. Many people just look at hard cash and to them £50/month is twice as much as £25/month. >95% of VM customers take this view and don't pay more for the 50M service available to them for a small upgrade fee.

http://www.satelliteinternet.co.uk/blog/35-news/77-winter-sale £299 DIY or ~£100 extra for an installer.

Plus a grand off hardware costs for Welsh notspots.
Posted by whatever2 over 6 years ago
that's cos £50/month is twice as much as £25/month... common denominator being 12 months... it's basic maths.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.