BDUK and the final 10% - Why 2Mbps, why not Satellite

We often get questions on here about the BDUK project, especially
- Why the BDUK target for the final 10% is a measly 2Mbps
- How Satellite is a measly get-out clause
- Why use 24Mbps when EU specifies 30Mbps

Well, while looking at the "Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire" website, checking yesterday's BDUK announcement, I came across some interesting additions to the standard targets that we perceive BDUK to be all about.

1. The council there very much sees the EU 2020 target to be the main focus, and that the current BDUK project is just a step on the way. Those targets are 30Mbps universally, and 50% take-up of 100Mbps+.

2. That as much of the current BDUK funding as possible contributes directly towards the 2020 target. They don't want to waste money within *this* project hitting targets when it won't *also* help towards the 2020 target.

3. They specifically say that, for the last 10%, they're only focussing on a minimum of 2Mbps to "minimise the amount of gap funding allocated to providing short term throwaway solutions"

So, they don't want to get people just above 2Mbps onto 4 or 8Mbps, unless this directly helps towards reaching 30Mbps.

4. They acknowledge that satellite would solve the short-term problem of a 2Mbps minimum.

5. But then state that "this approach would make no contribution to the underlying infrastructure required to deliver faster speeds over fixed and mobile networks", and largely dismiss it.

6. They also mention "this approach does not contribute towards BDUK’s objective of delivering fibre to every community."

Other broadband plans that I have seen make similar statements, but this is the first time I've seen it phrased in a way that rejects throwaway solutions because of 2020.

So, the big picture - the 2020 targets, and "fibre to every community" are actually more important than the interim BDUK targets.

I can't answer the 24Mbps vs 30Mbps thing though...

Then there's an obvious corollary to the stuff I wrote above - and that relates to the 90% that get SFBB within BDUK and those future 2020 targets.

That is - the main FTTC solution to be deployed within BDUK *is* seen as directly helping hit those targets: both the universal 30Mbps *and* the take-up of 100Mbps.by 50%. It is easy to accept that the current FTTC rollout helps to hit the first target, but it isn't (yet) so easy to see that it will definitely help hit the latter one.

Whether BT has promised that the 100Mbps target is plausible as a consequence of vectoring, bonding, FTTdp or FTTP, it seems that they are expecting this rollout to contribute towards it.

I suspect, though, that BT fully expect vectoring to result in a new headline speed for FTTC of at least 100Mbps, and have been telling the counties this.

I don't see FTTPoD as a part of this picture yet. It makes high speeds available to a vast number of people, yes, but doesn't do so in an affordable way, so certainly won't be a large part of the "50% take-up" requirement.

24 was used as a way of saying "not ADSL2+" ie superfast is a headline speed greater than 24M. They initially fluffed it.

Can't explain the logic for the EU's 30, other than that traditionally the continentals preferred multiples of 10 and we had multiples of 12.

Planning for meeting an EU target could be viewed as a bit presumptive

I thought the EU preferred magnitudes of 10 rather than multiples? So, surely they should have set it at 100?

Unless of course they would allow us to have 3 lots of 10 - but surely that would need 3 different connections (or indeed is similar to having 2 lots of 10 and 4 lots of 1 in which case 24 should be fine).

Have seen lots of the detail mention stuff like this, particularly the projects with deadlines reaching into 2017 where they are looking at wider picture.

On the 24 - this figure appeared first, and then politicians got all confused over which number to talk about, though does not really matter as until FTTC has shown its true speeds with many millions connected it will be all conjecture or informed guess work.

The EU 2020 targets while looking nice and clear are as vague as the BDUK ones really, and remember 50% at 100 Mbps is almost achievable if Virgin Media continue speed upgrades in 2014 and beyond

I think the 24mbps comes about through the £10m odd of consulting that has already been spent of the BDUK funding. Possibly this could have been saved the cash and just had a big party instead (maybe the did who is to know!) if they had looked at your rather fine web page that contains the answer http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.... ie 90% of properties get covered by non vectored VDSL2 if you fibre up the existing infrastructure. Going any more than this would have created big problems in terms of delivering to either the percentage population or the speeds offered.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Have seen lots of the detail mention stuff like this, particularly the projects with deadlines reaching into 2017 where they are looking at wider picture.

I agree. A lot mention things in this kind of area - especially where they try to explain why they haven't included satellite, wireless or 3G/4G in their coverage maps.

But it was a first to see them justify why they had the target at 2Mbps for the final 10%. I wonder how that leaves the county that has set an intermediate target of 8Mbps.

On the 24 - this figure appeared first, and then politicians got all confused over which number to talk about, though does not really matter as until FTTC has shown its true speeds with many millions connected it will be all conjecture or informed guess work.

And that confusion/conjecture is largely why the projects *also* say that they'll only consider the 2Mbps areas after everything else is done.

When, no doubt, vectoring is part of the equation, possibly alongside bonding, and with FTTdp on a realistic horizon. All adding even more confusion.

It wouldn't really surprise me to see BDUK-2 come in an usurp the final 2Mbps stages of the BDUK projects.

The EU 2020 targets while looking nice and clear are as vague as the BDUK ones really, and remember 50% at 100 Mbps is almost achievable if Virgin Media continue speed upgrades in 2014 and beyond

If half the houses on a Virgin cable segment were on 100Mbps and using it to a significant degree, then... well, lets just say that I'm glad I'll be elsewhere.

The real advantage of having the EU targets set for 2020, even if they are vague, is that it allows the government to be running state-aid programmes at all.

And being honest to ourselves, state aid is the only way that we're going to see widespread 100Mbps speeds.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

24 was used as a way of saying "not ADSL2+" ie superfast is a headline speed greater than 24M. They initially fluffed it.

Can't explain the logic for the EU's 30, other than that traditionally the continentals preferred multiples of 10 and we had multiples of 12.

I originally thought it was used as a way to exclude ADSL2+ too - in other words, to force a technology that wasn't exchange-based.

I also started wondering if it was a target that allowed for the future addition of vectoring: If you can get 24Mbps now, you'll get 30Mbps with vectoring... job done.

Planning for meeting an EU target could be viewed as a bit presumptive

I agree, but it has a certain flair about it - how could the EU argue about the use of state aid when you are specifically targetting one of their precious goals?

exctily you all very good opionin and i like this topic

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

We often get questions on here about the BDUK project, especially
- Why the BDUK target for the final 10% is a measly 2Mbps

I would like to know if this is a sync speed or a download speed! I am to far (5km) from my cabinet for FTTC to make any difference so I shall be interested to see how Kent address the issue of providing a 2mbps service.

There is a Gigaclear project in my area, but they appear to have difficulty in getting enough people to subscribe. - much to my frustration