Skip Navigation

Norfolk should start to creep up the speed tables soon
Monday 10 June 2013 09:14:32 by Andrew Ferguson

The waiting for broadband improvements for some 3,500 properties in Norfolk is coming to an end, with around 30 locations getting their improvements as part of the BDUK/Norfolk County Council/BT project that was signed in December 2012. The areas below should see new fibre broadband options available to order between July and September.

Baconsthorpe, Bayfield, Bodham, Broome, Costessey, Cringleford, Croxton, Ditchingham, East Beckham, Emneth, Gorleston

Great Yarmouth: South Denes Enterprise Zone, Yarmouth Business Park on Thamesfield Way, parts of the town to the east of Hall Quay, South Quay and North Quay and Southgates Road plus areas centred around the bus depot on Caister Road.

Gresham, Gressenhall, Hempstead, Hethersett, Holt

King’s Lynn: some areas of Bentinck Dock, north of Crossbank Road, south of Gayton Road, west of Railway and St James’ Roads and either side of John Kennedy Road.

Letheringsett, Little Thornage, Lower Bodham

Norwich: some areas west of Woodside Rd, south of Cantley Lane, either side of Cantley Lane South, west of Riverside Road, north of Queen’s Road and south of St Crispin’s Road.

Saxlingham, Scarning, South Wootton

Thetford: Mundford Road Trading Estate, Threxton Road Industrial Estate and some areas north of Norwich Road.

Thorpe End, Upper Sheringham, West Beckham

Initial list of areas for new fibre cabinets in Norfolk

We need to highlight that even if your area is mentioned there is no guarantee that your particular street cabinet will be upgraded in this initial phase, and that while the technology used can give those closest to the cabinet speeds of 76 Mbps, this speeds decreases to about 24 Mbps when 1km from the cabinet.

The Eastern Daily Press appears to be the main source for the site list, as the Better Broadband for Norfolk website itself has still to update.

The postcode areas that cover Norfolk appear in the bottom third of our recent analysis, and that story would be worse if we excluded places like Norwich and Great Yarmouth which have some Virgin Media and existing Openreach FTTC service coverage.

UPDATE 11th June 2013 A kind soul directed us to a page on BBfN that has a basic map if you scroll down to the bottom of the page. A text based list is also available. We wish that BT or the council's would be more open, for example releasing postcode data that people could then make available in various formats saving the council the cost of employing a web developer themselves.


Posted by mikejp over 4 years ago
"We need to highlight that even if your area is mentioned there is no guarantee that your particular street cabinet will be upgraded in this initial phase" - unless it is clear from the information provided (which I doubt) you also need to highlight that not all users on a fibre enabled cabinet might be able to acquire a fibre connection UNLESS these BDUK schemes, unlike BT's commercial roll-out which typically enables around 1 in 5, call for ALL users to be provided for at cabinet install, and this will not be apparent due to NDA issues until users start asking.
Posted by Somerset over 4 years ago
@mikejp - cabinets are not sized for 100% take up because.... take up is not 100%.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 4 years ago
@mikejp Are you referring to total cabinet capacity or number of ports installed in the cabinet? Very different things.

If commercial is enabling 1 in 5 and no massive problem why should cabs under BDUK be provisioned for 100% takeup. Takeup of any broadband is only 80% across UK.
Posted by mikejp over 3 years ago
"@mikejp Are you referring to total cabinet capacity or number of ports installed in the cabinet? Very different things." - Not necessarily depending on the targets.
Posted by mikejp over 3 years ago
I don't know what the BDUK target is for 'available' connections and I suspect neither of you do either! If you have definitive knowledge of the requirements for ports under the scheme I would like to see them. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the money shovelled into BT's pockets to provide sufficient capacity for 100% take-up, or are we not aiming to go there as a country?

It is so far a question no-one seems willing to answer.
Posted by mikejp over 3 years ago
Somerset - why should we NOT be aiming for 100%? This is the only state investment in broadband we know of for a few years. Who pays in 2017 when along comes Joe Blogs and asks for a fibre service when there is insufficient capacity in his cabinet?
Posted by New_Londoner over 3 years ago
As Andrew says, why would you plan for 100% take-up when broadband has only achieved 70% or so to date and many of the fibre rboadband customers like me are migrating from ADSL?

Given the low level of public investment, specifying 100% capacity would simply limit the scope of the deployment. I'm not sure any of us would want that?
Posted by WWWombat over 3 years ago
@mikejp (1)
You are quibbling over peanuts here, for the BDUK project targets.

BT add extra cables, linecards, and cabinets when capacity runs out - that isn't a problem.

The majority of the cost, and the portion that the gap funding helps with, is getting power and fibre to the site of the cabinet.

Adding another cabinet is, relatively, peanuts.
Posted by WWWombat over 3 years ago
@mikejp (2)
But just to help you, look at comments on the Warwickshire article.

There, the CC wants to use current BDUK funding only where it helps towards the 2020 EU targets.

The EU targets include universal availability of 30Mbps and 50% take-up of 100Mbps+.

Hard to reach 50% takeup if you don't have at least 50% of the ports. Hard to justify 100% availability without the number of ports matching the actual take-up.

But you should expect those numbers over the next 7 years. Idle, unused ports are a waste of money in the meantime.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 3 years ago
Also councils have clawback options (if they got in their contract) so that some money is given back (or reinvested to go further) if takeup exceeds various levels.
Posted by New_Londoner over 3 years ago
So presumably any additional take-up would be self-funding for the tax payer? If so, this is far better than using our taxes to pay for 100% capacity on day one if we can have theextra for "free" if or when there is demand.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 3 years ago
There appears to be potential for this.

Until we see actual takeup levels for BDUK projects rather than guess work hard to say.

Or a copy of a BDUK contract lands on my desk and I can have a sleepless night reading it.
Posted by Bob_s2 over 3 years ago
The cabinet would probably have capacity for about 80% take up. Additional cards can be added as required. This would be more cost effective. It also means they will not have lots of cards out of warrenty
Posted by mikejp over 3 years ago
(Not unkindly) but wishing Andrew a sleepless night.
Posted by WWWombat over 3 years ago
The Staffordshire LBP (old numbers) says:
"Under the terms of the grant contract, the supplier will be monitored for a period of seven years. If the actual investment gap is larger than £29.76m then it will be the responsibility of the supplier to absorb those extra costs – the capital grant will not be increased. However, if the actual investment gap is proven to be less than £29.76m then a clawback clause will be activated."

They all include the clawback terms - it is mandatory for the state aid.
Posted by WWWombat over 3 years ago
West Sussex LBP:
"It is assumed that a take up of 20% will occur without stimulation."


"Success with the demand stimulation will minimise initial outlay and may trigger the contract "claw back" mechanism for commercially viable locations. Returned funds will be reinvested in further improvements."
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.