Broadband News

How is the rural versus urban broadband divide looking?

There is a common complaint when we talk about the levels of broadband coverage across the UK and that is that averages hide the reality, but when tracking towards national goals if quoting a single figure or talking for just 30 seconds on radio it is impossible to convey the full picture. Our labs.thinkbroadband.com/local stats site lets people drill down to the constituency and district council levels and even further down to the individual postcode level, but we thought given the latest news on broadband spending in the it is time to once more publish our rural versus urban data.

The table below shows the currently levels for the different rural and urban classifications as used by ONS, and then three aggregate figures are included, GB Urban and GB Rural make up the full GB area, but a deeper rural classification that is sometimes called the final 10% or the most deeply rural areas of the UK is also present as GB Deep Rural.

thinkbroadband analysis of Superfast, USO and Full Fibre Broadband Coverage for the rural and urban areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In descending order of superfast coverage - figures 11th September 2017
(change since 14th September 2016)
Area% superfast
24 Mbps or faster
% superfast
30 Mbps or faster
% Ultrafast
100 Mbps or faster

% Full Fibre
FTTH/FTTP

% Under 10 Mbps download

GB Urban (74.8% of premises)

98.6% (+1.6) 98.4% 66.1% (+2.6) 1.4% 0.5%
GB Urban - less sparse 98.6% (+1.6) 98.4% 66.1% (+2.5) 1.4% 0.6%
Belfast Metropolitan 98.4% (+0.9) 98% 72.7% (+5.3) 0.1% 0.5%
GB Urban - area sparse 98.3% (+2) 98.1% 64.4% (+3) 0.1% 0.3%
GB Town and Fringe - area sparse 97.7% (+3.1) 97.4% 41.4% (+4.7) 0.8% 0.4%
Derry Urban 97.5% (+1.7) 96.9% 76.5% (+13.6) 0% 1.7%
NI Large Town 95.4% (+2.2) 94.5% 0.2% (+0.2) 0.2% 1%
NI Intermediate Settlement 94.6% (+3.3) 94% 0.4% (+0.2) 0.1% 2.2%
NI Medium Town 94.5% (+2.2) 93.8% 0.3% (+0.3) 0.3% 1.6%
NI Small Town 94.4% (+2.3) 93.2% 0% (=) 0% 1.7%
GB Town and Fringe - less sparse 92.8% (+4.3) 92.2% 15.5% (+1.3) 1.5% 3.2%
NI Village 91.1% (+6.8) 89.7% 0.6% (+0.6) 0.6%  4.3%
GB Rural (23% premises) 83.8% (+6.2) 82.5% 15.7% (+2.4) 2.5% 9.8%
GB Village - less sparse 78.5% (+8.7) 76.4% 8.4% (+2.3) 3.2% 13.9%
GB Deep Rural (10.8% premises) 72.1% (+8.6) 69.9% 8.3% (+2.6) 3.8% 18.2%
GB Hamlet - area sparse 58.5% (+11) 57% 9% (+2.9) 8.5% 32%
GB Hamlet - less sparse 54% (+9.2) 50.8% 9% (+8) 4.1% 29.8%
NI Small Village 43.8% (+5.6) 41% 2.2% (+1.1) 1.7% 40.2%

The good news is that in the last 12 months the gap between urban and rural areas has been closing up, but clearly still a good deal more work to do, hence the continued announcements from local authorities of project extensions and the gainshare news from the weekend. The figures also help to highlight why when people from villages complain that 90% and 95% looks totally impossible it is very often down to the reality that villages and hamlets are still well behind the larger towns.

The good news for rural areas is that full fibre (FTTP) is growing rapidly as the following bar charts that show Sept 2016 and Sept 2017 illustrate, though if your concern is just ultrafast downloads and not the technology itself the presence of Virgin Media in urban areas means they are still king for ultrafast coverage and with DOCSIS 3.1 cable on the way over the next few years those download speeds could be 500 Mbps to 1000 Mbps.

Chart of FTTP availability across GB and NI in Sept 2016
Click image for larger version

Chart of Full Fibre (FTTP) availability in rural and urban areas of GB and NI in September 2016

Chart of FTTP availability across GB and NI in Sept 2017
Click image for larger version

Chart of Full Fibre (FTTP) availability in rural and urban areas of GB and NI in September 2017

The next few months as the UK races to the overall 95% target will of course see things change, but as is obvious from the chart the urban areas will be well ahead still and the size of the UK is such that even with a 98% superfast ambition it would be possible to reach that goal without any further roll-out in the GB Hamlet - area sparse grouping which comprises some 174,500 premises.

One sneaking suspicion we have had for some time, is that some people believed the BDUK roll-outs were to deliver 90% coverage specifically to the rural areas i.e. in those 6.5 million premises that make up the GB rural 23% of premises that the aim was to deliver superfast broadband coverage to 5.85 million, when the reality was that the 90% goal was always the combined result of commercial + BDUK footprint.

Comments

I live in rural N. Ireland about 6 miles outside of Omagh and according to the Openreach checker we are now "in scope" for a FTTP solution after years of sitting at "seeking solutions" so hopefully things are moving in the right direction.

  • pipcoo
  • 2 months ago

A most useful piece of work. The kernel of the problem is exposed for all to see:- "even with a 98% superfast ambition it would be possible to reach that goal without any further roll out in the 174,000 premises in GB Hamlet sparse area"

Ofcom needs to devote more attention to this end of the market. I lived in a hamlet where it was clear nothing would ever happen. The exchange concerned now has superfast, the hamlet is still under 5Mbps and looks like being there for many moons to come

Rural will eventually be solved by pressure of complaints. Hamlets need a more vigorous Ofcom

  • 961a
  • 2 months ago

The final paragraph is a little misleading. BT was going to do 66% which included a significant amount of FTTP. BT has not done £2.5bn of work but £1.5bn worth - less than 50k cabinets before capacity cabs are added.
The commercial rollout in Wales and Northern Ireland was less than 50% and in Scotland less than 60%. This still excludes all the in-fill needed in BT areas where FTTC does not support superfast.
BDUK in doing 4.5m premises had had to pass more than 6m premises to do so.
The state is doing more, BT has done less and we have big gaps to fill.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

So @valueformoney are you saying BT has done less than 66% in terms of superfast roll-out using commercial money? If so what percentage has BT delivered, and all the other commercial projects?

You appear to forget that the BDUK projects are only paying for the 4.5 million superfast premises, those additional premises don't count towards being invoiced for delivering superfast.

If anything the pressures to reach 90% may have compounded any decisions to switch from P to C in some areas, to ensure timelines held.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

I live in a village 2 miles from the exchange, so I think I can be called "rural". Last year we went onto fibre with a box 100yds away. Believe it or not we regularly get 74 Mbs on Infinity2. Don't think I can complain about that.

  • ndevongull
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

Where do you get that figure that of premises passed by FTTC in BDUK only 75% can get 24mbps or more? Even in Scotland, where you might expect the ratio to be worst dye to geographical spread, it's 87%.

Given approximately 95% coverage at SF then that 1.5m you estimate has been passed yet can't get 24mbps essentially means every property in the BDUK areas must be on an enabled cabinet. That's clearly not the case.

So go ahead - from where have you got that 6 million properties passed figure?

Bear in mind that there have been many infill cabinets added.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Incidentally, Northern Ireland is a rotten example to choose as the intervention scheme that started there coincided with the commercial roll-out. In NI it's very difficult to distinguish what is commercial and what is subsidised as it was done at much the same time and goes some way to explain why the subsidy cost per cabinet was lower.

Also, BT was not going to be doing a lot more FTTP in the commercial rollout - the plans for 2m FTTP were dropped in favour of about 18m FTTC for financial reasons.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

I put in an FOI request to BDUK at the end of 2015 the answer to which indicated about 500,000 or 15% of premises passed at that time would not get 24Mbps. Since then there will be have a certain amount of infill to lower this figure.

  • gerarda
  • 2 months ago

@gerarda

Thanks. An initial figure of 85% makes sense and is roughly in line with those Scottish numbers and, as you way, the infill will increase that further.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Ofcom's Infrastructure report (2013) has a graph that suggests about 90% of FTTC lines get 24Mbps+.

A graph from the 2014 report suggests that 90% of FTTC lines got 30Mbps+.

Those will be predominantly commercial results. I wouldn't be surprised for the BDUK projects to have a lower percentage - and I'd accept the 85%. I'd equally expect that infill will improve this somewhat.

  • WWWombat
  • 2 months ago

You sure that graph was 90% of FTTC lines, i.e. cabinets delivered in 2013 or 90% of the line population for the UK overall as the network stood at that time?

A big difference.

As for BDUK vs commercial commercial seems to be at 95% superfast, bduk Scotland 91.2%, HIE 80.6%, Wales 91.8, NI 84.1

In short a wide variation and could do an overall for BDUK vs commercial but out of date in a few days and only settles 1 small question some have

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

  • brianhe
  • 2 months ago

Not sure what classification I come under as an isolated rural premise. On 4km line from exchange, cab near exchange which is too far away, now in fill cab installed, which is also too far away, so fttc passed twice. After years of promises, Superfast Scotland have now admitted they have no plans.

  • brianhe
  • 2 months ago

Not sure what classification I come under as an isolated rural premise. On 4km line from exchange, cab near exchange which is too far away, now in fill cab installed, which is also too far away, so fttc passed twice. After years of promises, Superfast Scotland have now admitted they have no plans.

  • brianhe
  • 2 months ago

GB Hamlet - area sparse would be the underlying area i.e. most rural category.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

brianhe

"After years of promises, Superfast Scotland admit they have no plans"

"our commitment to make sure that 100% of the UK can get affordable, fast and reliable broadband by 2020" Digital Matt Hancock

Dream on

  • 961a
  • 2 months ago

Just a thought... would be nice to see the percentage change in "under 10 Mbps" column. Not sure if it is something that can be easily done, but it would give us an indication on how much the improvement works benefit those with slowest speeds, and how much goes to the easy part of the network upgrade.

  • hvis42
  • 2 months ago

Change in USO gets a call out in the monthly summary in words, but can say 12 months ago we reported 4% for UK and down to 2.9%, so a drop of 315,000 in the last 12 months

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@961a Scotland has its R100 ambition, but no flesh on the bones as yet.

On the Matt Hancock statement, was referring to the USO at that point I believe where 10 Mbps is often referred to as high speed or fast broadband.

If I was script writing I'd have ensured it was worded differently, as some outlets are using that quote in a way that may make some think he means 100% superfast.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@EulerID - the c6m passed comes from a physical counts of premises attached to the some 23k cabinets installed to last December. It includes those accidentally passing Virginmedia and those who too far or who cannot get 24mbps.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Andrew

"If I was script writing..."

But you're not a politician. I'd say that was exactly why it was written the way it was

As has been said several times before, those in these hamlets and elsewhere who are on speeds less than 2Mbps at which point the whole thing is useless care not what the definition is as long as someone gets off their butt and provides useable broadband.

  • 961a
  • 2 months ago

Andrew /Euler Based on a OR system size of 26.5m (not 28.8m) BT can claim they passed and connect 66-67% of premises or perhaps 18m, using c47k cabinets. How many of these can get >24Mbps? Using 87% reduces it to 15.6m.
BT did less and invested less. The state did more, but we have learned it is cheaper than portrayed and demand is greater. The resources are there to do a more complete job.
BDUK pay all costs presented, the full costs are paid over fewer customers. They do not pay less when overbuilding Virginmedia, but it may get fixed once the clawback is payback post 2023,(less the early release of £130m) unless some other plan emerges.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

The reason I asked was a hunch that there might be a regional difference in this.

Does the sub 10Mbps percentage decline proportionally to the size of the problem, or is there another divide there as well? I would not be surprised if sub 10Mbps figure was more or less the same in areas not receiving BDUK funding, which in turn would prove the Ofcom shibboleth "market and competition will sort out the urban areas" wrong.

  • hvis42
  • 2 months ago

What is this OR system size of 26.5m? The UK has more premises than that, and as the Openreach network via USO should be available to all UK premises using a subset to do your maths smacks of picking and choosing to get an answer that fits a theory.

As for doing more, you do realise that this is exactly what this news item is about, doing more and that it has not cost as much as originally thought.

On the pay less in Virgin Media areas, care to share an invoice showing that you say is true? Would make for a court case.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@961a and Andrew From what I have seen the USO is not in the BDUK plans or at least not in the Suffolk ones. Lots of postcodes where the cabinet has been enabled but speeds of less than 10Mbps are achievable as showing as upgraded ie job done. This was not something that was showing a few months ago, where these postcodes would have been shown as still awaiting an upgrade

  • gerarda
  • 2 months ago

@Gerarda councils have not had any USO responsibility devolved to them, i.e. USO is still up for grabs

As for Suffolk infill is actively on going, as for postcodes showing as superfast available but speeds of less than 10 Mbps, feel free to share those postcodes for checking

Remember Openreach saying cabinet is enabled does not mean superfast subsidy has been paid, the actual speed available will be the decider.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@Andrew
That 90% figure is of FTTC lines, yes. Both graphs.

@brianhe
ONS definitions for "hamlet" actually refer to "hamlet and isolated dwellings", so you will be in one of those two classifications (sparse or less-sparse).

The definition of "sparse" comes from looking at a much wider area. ONS simplistically say "This broadly reflects the surrounding 30km being characterised by low population density."

There's a good map of E+W on this ONS page, showing the sparse areas:
https://goo.gl/N4auwC

  • WWWombat
  • 2 months ago

@brianhe
Sorry, don't have the equivalent map for Scotland.

@vfm / @euler
The last time I had figures for the SF vs non-SF split of BDUK was for December 2015.
At that time, it was reported as 4m total passed in BDUK vs 3.5m with SF speeds.

That's a figure of 87.5%.

I can't believe that, in work done since then, it has needed 2m premises passed to cover 1m with SF speeds.

  • WWWombat
  • 2 months ago

@vfm
You're right that BDUK just pays the bills presented, no matter whether premises covered are VM or not.

However, the value-for-money calculation (to decide whether to upgrade a cab in the first place) only uses the non-VM, non-superfast count as a denominator.

Too many VM => cabinet not included at all.

Finally, though, the BDUK contracts do require that BT end up reaching the threshold of premises capable of getting superfast speeds ... and that total too can only come from premises that were non-SF, non-VM beforehand.

Otherwise BT have to add cabs at their own expense.

  • WWWombat
  • 2 months ago

And here is the kicker - which projects has BT failed to deliver the contracted number of superfast premises?

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@brianhe / @andrew

It seems that Statistics Scotland uses a slightly different measure from the sparse vs less-sparse that ONS uses: remote vs accessible. Alongside an 8-fold rural-urban classification.

The remote distinction appears to be whether the place is within a 30 minute car drive of a town of 10,000+ population.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassification

I guess that might be reasonably equivalent to the 30km threshold for ONS.

Here's the 2014 map:
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/11/2763/2#map2.2

  • WWWombat
  • 2 months ago

@Andrew - the better broadband to suffolk site probably deliberately does not say these postcodes can get superfast. It describes them as "already upgraded" or "existing coverage area"

See http://www.betterbroadbandsuffolk.com/LineCheck.aspx?strPostcode=ip300ah and the neighbouring postcodes for example.

  • gerarda
  • 2 months ago

Yeap aware of the difference in Scotland and did adjust them to try and line up with the England/Wales ONS stuff. The NI stuff was too different to roll into a single UK set of figures.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

"the c6m passed comes from a physical counts of premises attached to the some 23k cabinets installed to last December. It includes those accidentally passing Virginmedia and those who too far or who cannot get 24mbps."

So you've gone round and counted them physically? Or perhaps you mean you have detailed configuration information not available to the rest of us? What I think is more likely is applied some number (260 works) as the average number of lines per cab and multiplied it by 23,000.

So in other words, make believe and completely at odds with reported stats.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

@VFM as to overbuilds with VM, then what's the source for that number then and just how many is it? As far as I recall, only limited overlap was allowed and it surely doesn't account for the difference between 87% and 75% or else VM would surely have been screaming blue murder.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

@VFM
Rather than repeatedly making unsubstantiated allegations supported largely by hearsay, extrapolation and guesswork, why not just submit your dossier of "evidence" to the authorities so that they can investigate them properly?

Otherwise your posts amount to little more than trolling, which I would imagine is an unhelpful image for an industry consultant to be projecting.

  • New_Londoner
  • 2 months ago

@gerarda The website like some of the others are vague, but given distance to the cabinet more like 7 Mbps looks likely hence us saying

https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/postcode-search-IP30%200AH

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

TheEulerID; New_Londoner - Vodafone have submitted an annex via the WLA consultation response annex 2. It includes the evidence available, including the premise and cabinet counts. It should be the substantiation you have been yearning. It would good to see BT publish a full numerated response to this submission.

VM have gone to the EU and their submission to the CMS select committee outlines the issue pretty well.

Of the £463m capital deferral owed, only £130m has been released, the rest is resting in BT's accounts. LA investment account balances are an extra.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Brianhe

I know it is not what you want to hear but! If you are a single isolated property 4km from the exchange all the relevant authorities will be assuming that Satellite is what will provide your greater than 10Mb service.

I know and appreciate that some properties(especially in Scotland)cannot get line of sight but this has not yet hit home to the decision makers. Also for those that can get satellite, latency etc can mean some services are still not what you would like. However they would say that all (non leisure) essential service would be accessible and that fulfils their promise.

  • jumpmum
  • 2 months ago

And the other money will be released once projects decide what to do, did you not notice the bit about £200m of the £645m already committed, so even DCMS release shows there is more available to do more. Or do you disagree on the £645m

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Hi Broadband Watchers.
Could it be that imperial measurements are not been used to the basic mile E.G. 1760 yards to a mile I use this method as I have the (GPS position of the FTTC )and the postal run (Post Code GPS position) and the customer GPS position from this you can get the approx Sync Of the address. The Exchange has its GPS position so it is easy to locate the GPS for the FTTC/GFast.

  • Blackmamba
  • 2 months ago

Andrew, the release of the remaining funds is under BT's control. It is sitting in BT's accounts as a Deferral. £130m was released early by BT to be spent with BT. You may find that the remainder has not been released because it might need to be competed for. I cannot find a reference in the new state aid doc on the use of clawback above £130m, but there is something stopping it being re-applied directly with BT.

Projects like CDS cannot plan because much of this information is withheld to a time convenient for BT to declare. The gaming of costs is deeply sub-optimal for all.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@blackmamba Nothing to do with imperial measurements at all, never have and never will use imperial measurements in any analysis we do and very much doubt anyone else but you is too.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Projects like CDS CANNOT plan for reinvestment until it knows which premises are actually going to be covered in phase II, and am sure they can ask for guidance from Westminster on the amounts they are entitled or work it our for themselves or pay an expensive consultant to do it.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Just putting this out there....

30,085 cabinets with BDUK projects average 139 superfast premises per cabinet (FTTP is not included in this)

51,894 commercial live VDSL2 cabinets average 481 superfast premises per cabinet (FTTP is not included in this)

Additional cabinets for capacity are not included in these figures.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

It's wholly untrue that money in the deferral fund is under BT's control. The deferral "fund" is simply a recognition of a future liability either to repay the money or for local BDUK projects to use as reinvestment.

If BT just went ahead and invested that money it would not reduce the deferral fund by one penny. The liability would remain. Local politicians would be very happy - they'd see the roll-out happening knowing at the end of the contracted period they'd get that gainshare money without the need to reinvest it. BT shareholders - they'd be less than happy...

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

@EulerID LOL - you are funny. The monies are under BT's control as they are owed to Gov/LA but not usable by them until BT agrees to release it for future procurement. In the mean time BT is free to use that cash flow from subsidies to pay for Football.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Andrew, useful - but BDUK cabs, 30k x 139 is less than the superfast passed figures claimed by BDUK, so that needs checking.Last Christmas the average was 219, 28.9k cabs against 6.36m passed (all, not superfast).
BT has passed nearly 52k x 480 > 24m premises hmm Dec2016 I counted 48.9k cabs against 19.3m - or an average of 391premises (all, not superfast) Interested to see your 480.
Thanks

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Did you not see the bit where I said FTTP is NOT included comparing with all (not just superfast) does you no favours when trying to query the data. Who says BDUK figures are 100% correct anyway...

As for seeing the 480 you can pay like anyone else who needs raw data access, or wants to commission a report.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

An additional variable is that I've removed the superfast premises where Virgin Media is available, but that is reducing the amount BDUK delivered since the cable roll-out is visiting some areas where cabinets have previously been delivered with gap funding.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Andrew, FTTP makes no measurable difference. So you have an estimate for Virginnedia overbuild, can you publish? This still does not reconcile to the BDUK number. 139 is too small, the cabinets number look ok.
If you provide a total number for commercial why not a total count for BDUK's work? It is a bit mis-leading.

The 480 may include Virginmedia so the difference is interesting 4.5m, that makes sense.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

So what is the BDUK number?

And how much FTTP means no measurable difference?

Throwing away what might be 200,000 premises sounds like someone trying to make things fit their own narrative rather than constantly trying to move with the times.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM
I found the document after some hunting. Much better when data is sourced. Links are nice, so there's one at the end.

Looking past the gratuitous brickbats at a competitor, there are some reasonable gripes (like the paucity of audited BDUK public numbers, including premises passed), some unreasonable (not having detailed access to OR BB investment breakdowns). Lots of questions (e.g. 6.3m premises passed yet 5.5m in the intervention area). More reading, more observations to follow.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/105249/Vodafone-annex-2.pdf

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

"but not usable by them until BT agrees to release it for future procurement."

Wrong. The accelerated clawback exercise was created to allow BDUK projects to reinvest the money quicker. It requires a new contract in place (and BDUK projects are report it needs a new an agreed deployment plan - many intervention areas been amended & local priorities change) but that's it.

However, if what you expect is BT will hand cash back before term end or a new contract, that won't happen. The framework was designed to reinvest with the contractor within the contract period.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Now having a chance to read the Vodafone submission, perhaps they should buy some consultancy from someone a body that is tracking the roll-outs, it would be good to get some payback for the 28 working weekends so far this year.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Hi Broadband Watchers.
You may find the information on Ofcom. Post Code DBase which classes premises that pay tax on the building in that post Code group not the ones on the old DP records which are way out. Ect names changed. As these records are postal they can be measured either metric or imperia between post Codes l. I have checked via ZENs incorrect and BT records incorrect Ofcom correct. I have a feeling that Surrey is using OFComs results. Ofcom states 30 meg as Superfast and Surrey 24 Superfast.

  • Blackmamba
  • 2 months ago

@Andrew

That Vodafone report has some questionable numbers and claims. For example, the note under table 11 says

"not all premises connected to a cabinet receive a superfast broadband signal, approximately 70% receive superfast broadband speeds"

The estimate that only 70% of lines on enabled cabinet can get >24mbps strikes me as far too low.

As for those 28 working weekends, we know you love it really. All those stats and data cleansing/reconciling exercises. Heaven.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Well it should be obvious to anyone in the industry that I have a lot of analysis available and its not based on what are sometimes questionable premise counts from BT

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@Andrew

I would trust an impartial source rather more than those with vested interests. I used to have to do a lot of mangling of stats and one thing I learnt long ago is never to trust any of it without some form of independent cross-checking. Also, the same term gets used many different ways with different definitions and (mostly) people repeat numbers without question and without even doing a sanity check.

Oh - and people operating computers often put the wrong information into systems and the god of entropy means it accumulates randomness over time.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

EULARID - most of the sources quoted is BT data in the public domain and representations relied upon by BT at various times. The efficacy of copper gain kit varies by geography, the report quotes more than one number.

Andrew - so how much VM overbuild are you seeing? If your declaring c30k BDUK cabs with an average of 139 premises, then the overbuild is huge, not incidental. That Vodafone report includes an annex of urban subsidised build. I an certain you could do better.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Suffice to say this, if a BDUK project was to declare a goal that we were confident was false we would be all over it like a rash. Two fold advantage, council is mis reporting and/or Openreach has not delivered.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Hi Broadband Watchers.
I was under the impression in Surrey SCC BD UK had paid for a CaB with 100 ports/tie pairs to provide 80/20 to customers in the Cabs area only. It was the Responsibility of the ISPs to take up the subserdised 100 ports for their customers. When Openreach provided extra ports they were not subserdised by SCC.

  • Blackmamba
  • 2 months ago

Did this survey include Scotland? Specifically the Northern Highlands. Very poorly served up here. I am still struggling to achieve 6Mbps on a DSL Max exchange and that is good servcie for what it is.
No sign or chance of a Fibre service for us.

  • jpirie
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

Why you think that 30K BDUK cabinets at 139 SF premises per cabinet + 200K FTTP means there's a massive amount of VM overbuild, I've no idea. Andrew's figures appears to show just short of 4.4m premises, BDUK claim around 4.5m. That's a difference of 100K (a little over 2%) and Andrew has (many times) stated that TBB's speed estimation system is deliberately on the conservative side. That is on the low side (which matches my experience in two properties).

So how have you worked out that BDUK is overbuilding very substantial numbers of existing VM networks on that basis?

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Yes as its a GB figure (with NI called out on their own) it does include the Highlands and those IPStream Max or worse exchanges.

Lots happening in Highlands http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/highland,S12000017 but with 10% of premises still on ADSL/ADSL2+ a lot more to do, and also line lengths mean even when cabinet enabled or added to EO area not everyone gets superfast....NOTE: A VDSL2 connection at 7 to 10 Mbps down while only marginally faster than ADSL at 6 Mbps should feel a lot better as the backhaul side of things is better, and DLM system behaves a lot nicer.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

Oxera looked into the issue of BDUK overbuild of VM areas. Given that OR cabinets cover wide areas a certain amount of overlap was inevitable unless those premises on the OR cabinet not serviced by VM were to be left out of the scheme. The question is how many. The Vodafone report picks an example, but is otherwise rather lacking. We have also been told that in assessing cabinets, the value calculations were based on unserved (by VM) counts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428381/The_UK_s_National_Broadband_Scheme_-_an_independent_evaluation.pdf

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

EulerID - Oxera report was for a specific purpose of renewing SA33671 and it failed to convince EU, so a new state aid measure was needed, but it provides some references but is not definitive.

Andrew called out for BDUK 139 premises average times 30k cabinets which is less than BDUK reported superfast. He indicated he had an number for VM overbuild. Reporting it may help build that Capital Deferral further so UK rural can benefit more fully as originally intended.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@VFM so are you saying that only some of the findings in the Oxera report should be used and some disregarded even though they are still presented as facts but our outside the perceived specific purpose of the report? I can see that specifics and sweeping generalities should be considered by the informed reader as non-representative of the whole, but anything else begins to lean towards reader selection of only those items that support their argument

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

@VFM so are you saying that only some of the findings in the Oxera report should be used and some disregarded even though they are still presented as facts but our outside the perceived specific purpose of the report? I can see that specifics and sweeping generalities should be considered by the informed reader as non-representative of the whole, but anything else begins to lean towards reader selection of only those items that support their argument

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

On our figures looks like BDUK has delivered 4.42m million premises, and that includes allowance made for 1.1 million cable premises. Now some of those cable areas were rolled out to after the BDUK had previously gone there, so the 4.42m is another 20k to 30k higher, and you can then into a 1% variation which needs not much of a change to vanish.

If you want to declare failure with data that is just 1% out, then feel free but you'd get no support from me.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

The 30,085 is VDSL2 cabinets, FTTP has its structure but I don't measure numbers of splitters (why would I?) so a simplistic BDUK figure divided by 30,085 cabinets gives 151 premises per cabinet, and that is not correct due to things like FTTP but shows we are all in the ballpark.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Gadget - My opinon, Oxera was a report for the EU so the state aid measure could be extended. That was its only purpose. It was written only for that purpose. I support getting the job done, and the folk doing the work need applauding. But Andrew has now referenced a figure 1.1m of VM premises which may have been impacted by a state aid measure which referenced 'rural' at least 19 times and had clauses stating 'urban' needed a separate measure.
The state aid breeches can be set aside provided there is a plan to re-invest monies pursuing the original goal in rural.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Gadget - Note; Oxera report did a useful service is adding detail and outlining the capital reconciliation process. They formally reported on the existence of the Investment Accounts where BT capital contributions may end being paid. These are not being reported on. This was helpful at a time when BT and indeed ex-Minister Vaizey were telling the CMS committee BT has been paid.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

Andrew; Thanks for sharing the 1.1m VM number. What is your confidence level? If we take 4.5m (BDUK) (151x30k cabs) and add the 1.1m and make some allowance for the distance based limitations of copper gain you will quickly exceed 6m premises 'passed' in the manner BT counts 18-19m premises.
This is helpful, as it better shows how the gap funding principal should be applied, and how the BT Capital Deferral needs to continue growing. The latter assumes there are limited balances in the LA Investment Accounts which continue to go unreported. The latter is a little unfair on BT.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@ValueForMoney Confidence is that I've gone public with it. It seems many comments later that the BIG difference is you've been looking at passed at any speed rather than passed at superfast speeds.

If you want to fight the rural/urban I suggest you learn about the imprecision in defining those two words first. The public don't care, they just want better broadband.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Would not believe any of it. Here in a rural part of NI the database on openreach and dsl checker is so far out of sync with reality how would they know what the figures are. I know of property's around here where people are told the can't get FTTC but can, and property's where the opposite is also the case. Hit and miss all over this area.

  • billdornan
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

Whilst BDUK will not count premises passed which already have cable access, any "overlap premises" which take-up VDSL2 are counted for the purposes of gainshare money so do return capital to public funds.

As for the way BDUK rolled out, that comes from the political priorities set out from the beginning to cover largest number of non-SF locations as fast as possible with the lowest cost. Somebody in a go-slow spot probably doesn't much care if they are officially "urban" or "rural".

Clearly the cabinet overlap with VM territory has worked to OR's advantage (and it's ISP customers).

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

@billdornan Well aware that even official things appear very odd in Northern Ireland for ordering, and this is reflected in our data with the largest gap between VDSL2 at any speed and superfast figures.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

5Mbps, 10Mbps, 100Mbps ........... that's all La La Land to me. Please can I have a steady 1.5Mbps, 2.0Mbps would be a dream! Speeds get so poor, that even a dial up service is tempting. Ever since Open Reach decided to upgrade exchanges to fibre, us poor schmuks are stuck on ADSL (not ADSL2) without any chance to improve this basic service. It was a joke years ago that we wouldn't see these superfast connections in our lifetime, it's not a joke anymore.

  • biglwcus
  • 2 months ago

TheEulerID - The Idea that VM overbuild of 1.1m contributes to clawback I am sure is a relief to VM! To date it has not been presented as such and this thanks to Andrew is the first acknowledgment of VM overbuild of such a scale.
WWWombat has confirmed BT get paid for the build, there is not deduction for overbuilding VM, and you say the numbers are included in the clawback calculation.
We need transparency so the intended benefit for once in a generation upgrades in rural are not impaired while BT's investment is correctly stated in the WLA price control.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

The overbuild aspect has not been hidden before, but its not being pulled out into figures of one syllable so that people accept the figure, or put another they don't need to use a calculator.

NOTE: Before you go quoting the 1.1 million everywhere you MUST add the caveat "Now some of those cable areas were rolled out to after the BDUK had previously gone there" - it might be 100k or more of the overlap.

Oh and Virgin Media while mainly urban is not always.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM
Given you've been so emphatic about the alleged misconduct related to this contract for some considerable time, I'm surprised that you keep asking so many detailed questions related to numbers, technology, contract terms etc. Surely these are all covered in your report?

Or is that really just a dodgy dossier, full of estimates, exprapolation and guesswork, supported by misinterpretation of accountancy and technology?

  • New_Londoner
  • 2 months ago

Extrapolation not exprapolation!

  • New_Londoner
  • 2 months ago

New-Londoner We must have coffee sometime. This is about a policy of predation, where BT Group attempts to eat that which is intended for Openreach engineering activity. Reversing it is tricky. You will have read the Vodafone dossier. You can download the ICBAN dossier at the same Ofcom site. None of these have a legal intent, only one of reversing an abuse of power insuring the monies end up where intended.
How is the £333m of the £463m Capital Deferral going to be released before 2023? That is a lot of engineering work! How we do locate the sum of the Investment account balances?

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

New_Londoner - accounting policy question. If 50% of FTTC costs are commons costs allocations as per WLA analysis, what is the thinking around allocating costs inversely to the distance served or the 'speed'. So 80/20Mbps FTTC is allocated more costs that a 40/10. It is expedient, but deeply peculiar as BT are now allocating costs based on the specific distance shortcomings of copper gain technology. Most of the link with cost is lost and the cost allocation becomes arbitrary. How does such a policy support a more fibre plan?

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

New_Londoner - accounting policy question. If 50% of FTTC costs are commons costs allocations as per WLA analysis, what is the thinking around allocating costs inversely to the distance served or the 'speed'. So 80/20Mbps FTTC is allocated more costs that a 40/10. It is expedient, but deeply peculiar as BT are now allocating costs based on the specific distance shortcomings of copper gain technology. Most of the link with cost is lost and the cost allocation becomes arbitrary. How does such a policy support a more fibre plan?

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

New_Londoner Another accounting question. Now 1.1m premise of VM is beginning to be acknowledged as over-built with subsidies meant for rural, and BT has been fully paid, what adjustments will occur? How does gap funding work in these cases? What is BT's capital contribution to passing these 1.1m premises? What system size is used to calculate the clawback?
Your insight will be most welcome.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@VFM - to quote Andrew above "On our figures looks like BDUK has delivered 4.42m million premises, and that includes allowance made for 1.1 million cable premises. Now some of those cable areas were rolled out to after the BDUK had previously gone there"

So any decision or subsequent un-notified build made after the OMR is not (AFAIK) considered "overbuild" AS PART OF THE CONTRACT(my emphasis), neither is any area where the local authority has discounted input to the contract OMR phase.

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

Hi VFM.
Just sit back and think what I have said in the past over distance from the Cab where the recoded results will hit the two targets ( 24 SCC and EU 30).

  • Blackmamba
  • 2 months ago

"Now 1.1m premise of VM is beginning to be acknowledged as over-built with subsidies meant for rural"

So where in the DCMS figures of 4.5m premises delivered with £563m of Westminster money does the 1.1 million fit in.

It looks like they have already taken this into account in their figures.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

A; Some adjustment might be needed. For example;
1.) DCMS report 4.5m + a proportion of the 1.1m lowering the unit cost per premise passed while more accurately reporting the total effort.
2.) BT confirm their capital contribution or accrual for the overbuild.
3.) BT confirm or adjust the clawback measure or any additional measure to pay for what should be part of a commercial build.
It may be taken into account or it may not. In April 2015 the FD of BT said clawback would not exceed tens of millions. Overbuild of this level has been denied until now, so more change may be possible.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@Gadget 1.1m Premise Overbuild in a final third programme! Reduce it by half and it is still too large.
Given Ofcom are crediting BT with £100 per premise passed (Annex 8 Fair Bet analysis) in the proposed WLA price control then all they need to do is confirm for all the overbuild BT has paid the capital contribution to support the proposed price control.
Do you want BT Group to game what should be invested in Openreach? It is not even in BT shareholder or BT customer interest for there to be any ambiguity on the matter.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

"It may be taken into account or it may not."

How can you say that? Do you actually think the APPROX 1.1m is to be subtracted from the 4.5m that DCMS has declared?

It HAS been taken into account, if there was a 1 million disparity between DCMS and my figures I'd be busy talking to the newspapers to expose a scandal.

Only way to be sure about things at this point is cease all roll-outs, employ a lot of people to hand check invoices + data and then report back.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

As for final third, if it was a final third product the footprint would be around ten million premises and target would be 100%, just remember final third was a handy soundbite for politicians, and also highlights that the project is not just rural, since by one measure just 10% of the UK is rural, by ONS definitions its 20-23% of the UK.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM

Yes, the way the political objectives for maximum coverage at the fastest speed with the minimum cost have meant that there has been inevitable overbuild on VM areas due to the cabinet overlap. True, some of those more urban areas would have eventually been incorporated in commercial roll-outs, but the politicians wanted to accelerate the process, and what arose was an inevitable results of their objectives.

Meanwhile, somewhere around 4.5m premises have potential access to SF and the fast takeup & reduced costs mean there's a whole lot of money still to invest.

  • TheEulerID
  • 2 months ago

Andrew, the 1.1m VM overbuild which is in addition to the 4.5m should mean an additional capital contribution from BT of c£75x1.1m or £82.5m if the gap funding principle is being applied.
This is in addition to the c£350m identified by the NAO, whose status is yet to be reported on.
Clawback from these additional customers should also be identifiable in the process.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@VFM VM overbuild would have started after the Project Lightning announcement in Feb 2015, if I recall the Phase1 OMRs were around 2012-2013 (Superfast Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire OMR concluded Oct 2012), so I would suggest for at least BDUK Phase 1 no subsequent Virgin overbuild, however large, would affect the existing contractual arrangements from the stance that you are suggesting.

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

@ValueForMoney I do not believe you can make the contribution statement unless you have actual access to the invoices for a particular cabinet. Using a simple project spent X divided by cabinets delivered is not good enough in this regard.

In short you are making lots of noise, but in such a manner that the big questions about your statements mean it gets consigned to the 'conspiracy' pile.

Find one invoice for one cabinet with overbuild and one without and compare, of course you need other elements like power, label, cab size, fibre distance and other elements to be identical, i.e. not easy

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Gadget -Overbuild exists throughout phase 1 - Lancashire, Liverppol, Glasgow, Staffordshire and the allocations to cities can all be recovered.
Andrew -We can the ask the capital contribution question, and seek clarity on the clawback equation. Each £1 back is for more fibre in rural. On the top of the £64?m there is another c£150m to come. This is some of it and I think the Investment account balances yet to be disclosed will also be significant.
This is rehearsal rather than noise, but it allows some who may care to begin adjusting positons if needed. I am grateful for your forebearance.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@VFM - by Lancs do you mean B4RN? - if so then there is already a lot of documented discussion about both failure to notify to the OMR and the Authority dismissal of input as being credible wrt B4RN - either way if not in the OMR as published at the time of contract it is not "overbuild" within the contract. Equally for cities if in the OMR then not contractual overbuild. Any detail on the areas such as postcodes cross-referenced with OMR entry?

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

Can see the B4RN/Openreach FTTP overlaps using https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/broadband-map#11/54.0658/-2.6213/geafttp/b4rn/

Looks small compared to the size of the full B4RN footprint

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

Gadget - No VM overbuild. BARN- LOL the entire thread is about VM overbuild. Andrew has the data to support 1.1m, he should be able to provide some county by county picture where it has occurred.

  • ValueforMoney
  • 2 months ago

@VFM - The salient point is that VM lightning (or anyone for that matter) build occurring after OMR and contract is not overbuild that can be applied to the contract. There are other issues, like if plans were available to authority at the time of the OMR why were they not considered, and/or why did the overbuilding body not make those plans available to the local authority.

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

@VFM - I'd think of it like buying a new car - you pay extra for a sat nav and order the car. Next year's model has sat-nav as standard, do you try to claim your purchase contract is broken?

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

@VFM - I'd think of it like buying a new car - you pay extra for a sat nav and order the car. Next year's model has sat-nav as standard, do you try to claim your purchase contract is broken?

  • Gadget
  • 2 months ago

@ValueForMoney cross my palm with gold if you want customised analysis.

Time and resources are not free.

Until you get your hands on some real invoices, or you can continue to do is extrapolate and that's what everyone is trying to tell you, extrapolation will not work for the costs.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • 2 months ago

@VFM
These are all pretty fundamental issues. Surely you’d have answered these before coming to robust conclusions that caused you to make repeated allegations of misdemeanours?

This exchange does bode well for the dodgy dossier! ;-)

  • New_Londoner
  • 2 months ago

^^^ doesn’t!

  • New_Londoner
  • 2 months ago

Several years on and VFM is still trying to sort out his numbers with missing facts and having to ask for help with questions on an internet forum.

@VFM - Link to overbuild details, with locations and postcodes please.

  • Somerset
  • 2 months ago

And not forgetting the contractual OMR status as Virgin Lightning build occurred after most OMRs and therefore ineligible.

  • Gadget
  • about 1 month ago

Gadget, SA33671 is clear in rural v urban and overbuild so it addressable, you do not need to give up.
New-Londoner there are two dossiers for you to comment upon, please do.
Somemrset, - £463m Capital Deferral is progress, £180m underspend is progress, as will the LA Investment account balances when they are published. There is another £80m upside with this overbuild.
What's wrong with more fibre in rural?

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

@ValueForMoney I'll be blunt...how do you get the £80m from overbuild?

Your report that I read had so many theories and little fact i.e. relied on extrapolation that it read like something pulled together from our news items than anything actually produced with actual sight of invoices.

Is spending £1.7bn to get superfast to 3 million better value for money than getting superfast broadband to 5 million? Answer is short, YES or NO

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • about 1 month ago

@VFM a wonderful document, but as you are well versed in it which section are you relying on as all I can see, without the benefit of your extended scrutiny, is the requirement of hold an OMR and take notice AT THAT TIME (my emphasis) of any operator's plans to deploy?

  • Gadget
  • about 1 month ago

Gadget If the presence of a single premise in a post code (VM evidence to CMS Inquiry) gives rise to overbuild of an entire post code, then an increase in BT's capital contribution for those other premises in the post code ought to be possible. It is not about buying a second hand car, but the upgrade of national infrastructure using public subsidy. The contracts cover 7 years, so it can be fixed.
There needs to be a process which corrects the error made. The Oxera report says there are deductions in payments to BT. For these 1.1m VM premises let see what they are?

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

So is what you are campaigning for is publication of the invoices?

Surely local authorities are themselves checking the invoices, otherwise what is to stop BT from making invoices that allow them to a few thousand new vans from the contracts?

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • about 1 month ago

Andrew, the reports outline the public evidence available, not theory. You can rubbish BT's written submissions to Parliament, and you can if want rubbish the corrections made by a new Minister over his predecessor WPQs. That's not theory or conspiracy, it is your assessment of the evidence.

Your binary question is irrational.Like all binary yes/no, black/white you can construct a logic, but that does not mean it is rational in the context of the thread, which points to move coverage being possible in rural if BT pays its share for overbuild. More scrutiny will lead a more complete build.

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

@VFM thanks for the clarification - but whilst the contract lasts for 7 years for gainshare take-up, the build is based on the OMR at the time of the contract and the responses to the OMR from operators at that time.
There is a question around why VM did not add a Project Lightning view, to their response, but the likely response is that at the time they did not have authorisation/budgetary approval so there were no definite plans they could add to their response.
SA33671 is, to my reading, very clear on the process and does not require future build to be taken into account.

  • Gadget
  • about 1 month ago

@Gadget
I’m sure you’re right about future (undeclared) build not needing to be taken into account. If it had to be then surely it would be impossible to contract as you’d lack a stable state to base a spec and price on.

  • New_Londoner
  • about 1 month ago

@VFM - please answer the question about the LAs managing the contracts.

Given that postcodes are often about 10 properties I don't see building there being a big issue.

  • Somerset
  • about 1 month ago

@NL - all the OMR process does is ask the contributors for future plans up to a couple of years out - not unreasonable to avoid spending money if plans are afoot. he Operator's responses are then up to the local authority to either take the coverage into account when publishing the white areas or declare why the authority classed the future plan as unviable. The intervention area is fixed by publication of the OMR result by the local authority, and the contract is advertised, negotiated and let on that basis. The LA could, of course, ask for a contractual amendment, if future build emerges.

  • Gadget
  • about 1 month ago

So around the circle we go, and I stand by the reality I see of projects announcing gainshare and savings being reinvested. Is there more to come yes there is...even BDUK is saying there is more that has not been re-spent yet.

Figuring this all out to forensic detail means spending time and money and even then am sure it will be open to question.

I will say this the DCMS BDUK 4.5 million premises superfast does NOT include Virgin Media where it existed before the BDUK cabinet in a specific area.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • about 1 month ago

Take this example...mythical figures just for illustration....

A cabinet serving 80 premises costs £28,000 and no overlap with Virgin Media
A cabinet serving 80 premises costs £28,000 but 10 premises already have Virgin Media option.

For simplicity everyone gets superfast via cabinet.

Is BT invoicing on the cabinet, or the proportionate costs to deliver superfast to each premise.

i.e. £28,000 in first example and £24,500 in the second.

£400/premise in the overlap scenario

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • about 1 month ago

Hi VFM.
Just do a quich check on Surrey BD UK Cabs total 500 + most of them will not be involved as there are no ISP,s to overbuild the remaining just do a spot check on the length from the Cab to the post code.

  • Blackmamba
  • about 1 month ago

Hi VFM.
Just do a quich check on Surrey BD UK Cabs total 500 + most of them will not be involved as there are no ISP,s to overbuild the remaining just do a spot check on the length from the Cab to the post code. I do not know at what range SCC worked out the results in meters.

  • Blackmamba
  • about 1 month ago

Andrew - my opinion and wwwWombat confirms that in your example, no deduction is made. My opinion is based on the evidence of counting the total premises passed c6.5m by BDUK in order to achieve 4.5m. In paying for 4.5m superfast, they pay for all 6.5m passed which includes the VM overbuild and thus some more money comes back into the process.

Going around in circles is good as long as each time we go around the amount of money owed increases and this gets translated into more FTTP coverage.

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

Blackmamba - I will look at Surrey, but it looks in better shape than others.

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

Gadget - The amount of Lightning is small so it will be easy to dis-aggregate. It is where the lack of VM in one postcode, meant entire areas were overbuilt. What areas do you manage?

Somerset- start with the annex in the Vodafone submission referenced above. If you do not believe overbuild has occurred address the question against the 1.1m reported by Andrew. It is not just LA's it is how state aide guidance was used or mis-used? If errors were made they can be corrected. If your still in denial, then this is the first step to overcome.

  • ValueforMoney
  • about 1 month ago

VM Lighting is 567k for Dec with and estimated 700-800k for Dec17,

in addition this: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7529-overbuild-complaints-arise-with-bduk-wireless-pilot-in-west-witton

"A common complaint about the gap funded roll-outs is that public money is being used to help BT Openreach build more VDSL2 cabinets in areas where a competitor already exists, most commonly this is a Virgin Media area, but this scenario should be handled by the invoice system where BT invoices only for the gap funding on those premises that will benefit from the cabinet."

  • Gadget
  • about 1 month ago

I am still none the wiser, so someone needs to point towards an official public doc explaining this, rather than rely on the hearsay/opinion machines.

At end of the day for all anyone knows the savings/efficiencies may actually be the money from overbuilds and other things coming back around to be recycled, i.e. without a tonne of invoices and a room full of people to inspect hard to know for sure.

This is a job for NAO, which was pretty vague in terms of detail. Its the detail that is needed rather than grandstanding.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • about 1 month ago

H VFM.
In Surrey Dorking meeting all attending were given a list of the 28K post Codes and a target of 99.7% coverage at 15 Meg so the cut off point is 1.1 miles (Imperial) on the A range. When all the BT U.K. Cabs had been fitted the post code list was placed on SCC website to download with all post codes with a costing code for the best cost effective way to get the remaining customers to 15 meg using the clawback money. Today on TBB Surrey results are at 97% at 24 meg if you do find some PC that are over the limit I am shore it will be due to an error by under estermating the distance.

  • Blackmamba
  • about 1 month ago

Hi Broadband Watchers.
At last in Surrey Openreach is starting to hit the long lines either with fibre and interim Cabs plus help from the private sector so the question is how much is still left in the clawback pot to hit the 99.7% at 15 Meg. Any customers that is still on ADSl and has access to a FTTC BD UK is a target as they are not putting money back in the pot for fibre.

  • Blackmamba
  • about 1 month ago

Interestingly the Vodaphone report shows my exchange having a significant VM presence. It has none.

  • Somerset
  • about 1 month ago

Post a comment

Login Register