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

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

I would like to know if this is a sync speed or a download speed!

I have seen it written that this is download speed, not sync speed.

The current 21CN algorithm means that to get an IP Profile of 2000 requires a sync speed of 2270, but even that wouldn't be enough to get to download speeds of 2Mbps.

I suspect that it will really need to be about 4% higher than that. I'd expect targets of a sync speed of 2400, or an IP Profile of 2100.

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.

You're not going to get any kind of "enhanced basic" service, even if they add FTTC there.

They might add a new cabinet closer if there are enough properties within a cluster, and they might choose FTTP. But there's probably as much chance that you will end up with a non-DSL solution: satellite or 4G.

Are you in a cluster of properties that one solution would apply to? If so, how many?

I have seen it written that this is download speed, not sync speed.

me too. Can't help but think it's an error as it means that a 2M fixed speed ADSL service doesn't meet the USC

A sync speed of 2432 and a new IP profile to match would be required to clock 2000 on a speed test I suspect.

Edited by yarwell (Sun 09-Jun-13 11:11:53)

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

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

BT will actively discourage competition... no surprises there then...

The question which needs to be asked is, 'what level of competition do you want in your area in 5 years time?'

Competition is what drives down prices...

I would have thought that the cost of Gigaclear (?£40/month) is enough to put many people off.

If you have a village where everyone is getting around 1Mbps download yes Giga' will be more successful. However if most are getting higher values with just some outlying houses only getting the bare 1Mbps then getting people to pay for the Giga's serice will indeed be more dificult.
My own reaseach locally in my village is that broadband is not really a pressing issue, Yes faster would be nicer but in the scale of things its some way down the list. Tha'ts not to say there are some desperate for faster service - but they are a small minority.

Trouble is if you lower prices by introducing competition it is that lowering of prices that discourgages the competition to set up in the first place.

To answer the question as to what competion do I myself want in 5 years time. I want ONE infrastructure supplier to my property and I want the ability to choose from whom I get the 'stuff' down the pipes/cables.
So:
Transco supplies the gas pipes - and I buy the gas from whom I want
Southern electric distribution supplies the cables and I buy my electric from whom I want.
BTOR supply the phone and/or fibre connection and I buy my voice and data from whom I want.
Thames Water supply the water pipes - but I can't yet buy water from whom I want

In reply to a post by 1sta:

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

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

BT will actively discourage competition... no surprises there then...

That's a very glib meaningless statement. How do they do that? How do they actively work to discourage competition from a project already out on the ground?

Do they send people out to residents to plead not to spend money with Gigaclear? Give them sob stories that their children won't be able to have shoes to go to school?

Surely it can only be one of these two things:

- That the service already offered to people, at the price they already can get it for, with the choice of retail vendors they already have, is good enough.

- That the future service promised to people, with a promise that those people believe, at the price they believe it will be available for, with the choice of vendors they believe they will have, is believed to be good enough.

So what "active discouragement" comes down to is "offering a service that people want at a price they want".

Either that, or gigaclear is offering a service people don't feel they need, at a price they are unwilling to pay, and no further discouragement is required.

Perhaps, though, people just don't know. Perhaps insufficient "demand stimulation" has been done.

The question which needs to be asked is, 'what level of competition do you want in your area in 5 years time?'

That is too simplistic. The telecomms market today works at competition at different layers, and the competition that consumers see at the retail level depends on things happening at other levels.

Competition at retail level doesn't need competition at the physical access network. Australia's NBN is a project that is forcing a monopoly of the access network.

Competition is what drives down prices...

In a regulated industry, it is more complicated than that. The regulator can drive down prices whenever he feels like it, even without competition.

The real problem we have in the UK is that the competition, the regulator, and the consequent driven-down prices, means no company is particularly motivated to invest in future infrastructure.

Is ""Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire"" the only authority to have 'officially' recognised that there should be life after 2015/16?

No other projects have talked of going further.

As MrSaffron says, other places make the same kind of statements. Obviously some place a smaller or larger emphasis on things.

If you want specific detailed plans for other counties, you need to see what they said in their "local broadband plan" documents - which date back to when they first applied for BDUK funding, or UBF funding. These documents definitely give an indication of their intentions back then, but obviously things have changed since then.

You also get some more indications from the "public consultation" documents that they need to do for state-aid purposes, which comes after the "open market review" stage. They don't always tell you what their aims are there, not in too much detail, but some do.

The real intentions are going to be in the documents that come after - the request to tender, and the contract. However, I don't think we're ever going to see those in much detail.

Google for the authority + "local broadband plan" or "broadband public consultation" throwing in terms like "bduk" or "state aid".

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

That's a very glib meaningless statement. How do they do that? How do they actively work to discourage competition from a project already out on the ground?

I think the experiences of Ewhurst are the closest to the statement.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Do they send people out to residents to plead not to spend money with Gigaclear? Give them sob stories that their children won't be able to have shoes to go to school?

I am not prepared to provide precise details because I have no wish to make BT's actions, real or imagined, the issue.

My perception, rightly or not, is that the Gigaclear proposal is the best opportunity for our local community to have access to a service which can compete with BT, going forward.

Sufficient 'expressions of interest' were achieved to enable the current 'taking of orders' stage to proceed...

I am hopeful that ways will be found to make the Gigaclear proposal more attractive to those who appear still not to be convinced...

In reply to a post by 1sta:

I am not prepared to provide precise details because I have no wish to make BT's actions, real or imagined, the issue.

Yet you make it the issue precisely by throwing FUD into the discussion. And made the issue appear worse by subsequently refusing to substantiate it, and further by showing you had a vested interest.

If you don't want to make it an issue, it's probably better to keep stum in the first place.

Far, far better to present the positive side of your proposal. Why not tell us what is good about Gigaclear as you see it? What are the drawbacks?

Why not discuss issues such as, from this thread, whether gigaclear will or won't bring the kind of competition that will drive down costs? Or, from your other thread, how costs aren't an issue after all, but neighbour's beliefs in BT are the issue.

What this forum, this website, could truly do with is a positive evangelist for coverage of communities in the final 10%. Someone who wants those communities to benefit, yet can work in a supplier-agnostic fashion (and cope with the hits if the communities don't quite react quite so positively).

But we don't seem to get that. We get BT bashers galore (not a surprise, as there are thousands of ways to bash BT), but even the very people who ought to champion the final 10% seem to spend most of their time telling the other 90% what they should be doing, or bashing BT for what they are doing for that segment.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

I think the experiences of Ewhurst are the closest to the statement.

Yes, you're probably right on that one.

Wasn't it more the effect on SEEDA rather than the residents that caused that to fall apart?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Far, far better to present the positive side of your proposal. Why not tell us what is good about Gigaclear as you see it?

1. Gigaclear's offering appears to be 'fit for purpose'. i.e. the end result of having a Gigaclear network in the villages around where I live will potentially eliminate many communication 'issues'. We currently have very limited mobile phone coverage and the BT Exchange, Lockerley, is 7/8 kms away from some properties.
2. My opinion is that having an entirely separate network to the BT network will lead eventually to competition.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

What are the drawbacks?

The primary drawback, as I see it, is the upfront cost to individual property owners. The longer term benefit to the communities will be having the choice between two suppliers of broadband infrastructure. A secondary concern is whether Gigaclear can actually get the installation completed within a reasonable timescale.

I expect one reason why BT won so many bids is there was concerns if other companies would not go bust and be around in the long term, BT are a known quantity essentially a safe bet.

In reply to a post by 1sta:

We currently have very limited mobile phone coverage

What does the Gigaclear proposal do for that ?

The problem with Gigaclear over BT as I see it is that with Giga' you are locked into them forever.

So if BTOR provide the cables/fibre you are free to buy your service from whom you want using whose modem/router equipment you choose to put on your line.

If you have a Gigclear fibre line you can only use their service and only use their equipment........but then having a future revenue stream from totally captive customers with no other option is the only way Giga' can make the finances work for the upfront costs of installing the fibre infrastruture in the first place.

Am I right in thinking that if a village goes down the commercial Gigaclear solution then they are automatically by law excluded from receiving BDUK funds as well?
If so then BT won't upgrade the area to FTTC under BDUK program and it will be left on ADSL.
Instead the village will be left with a take it or leave it solution with Gigaclear as the sole provider.
They will have swapped one semi-monopoly for a total one.

The very remote properties are always going to be a problem as FTTC will not reach them and the costs to provide a full fibre solution will be huge and can only be met by a) either the owners paying for it themselves or b) the rest of 'us' subsidising it.

Edited by deleted (Thu 13-Jun-13 09:04:15)

In reply to a post by zom22:

The problem with Gigaclear over BT as I see it is that with Giga' you are locked into them forever.

Whereas, at the moment, they are locked into BT forever, and BT haven't delivered the kind of service they want (or at least some of them want).

Being locked into BT is fine, and gets the benefits you mention (the wholesale choice of different retail ISPs) *if* the location ends up chosen to be within the 90% of the local BDUK plan.

However, if it isn't included, then this kind of altnet plan is probably the only kind of solution - at least until BDUK2 (or 3, or 4...) comes along to cover the final 10% properly.

Am I right in thinking that if a village goes down the commercial Gigaclear solution then they are automatically by law excluded from receiving BDUK funds as well?

Councils rate an area as NGA white based on existing NGA coverage, but can exclude areas if the existing solution is too expensive. The standard thresholds have been, for NGA affordability, have been £250 installation and "£30-50+ per month".

Gigaclear seems to fall into that "per month" band, rather than the "+" side, so may be perceived unaffordable, but may not. The comment from "1sta" about the up-front cost suggests there is a large fee to be paid (perhaps by the community as a whole?) that might trigger the "installation" trigger instead.

If so then BT won't upgrade the area to FTTC under BDUK program and it will be left on ADSL.

Instead the village will be left with a take it or leave it solution with Gigaclear as the sole provider. They will have swapped one semi-monopoly for a total one.

The timing of the proposal probably means they are running the risk, but would waiting help? They'd only know at the end of BDUK whether the project ever intended to include them - and would still have to wait to find out if the (new) government ever intended a BDUK 2 project.

Of course, the monopoly they have gained gives them, at a price, infrastructure where they won't have to worry about BT's plans every 5 years for the next 40.

I suspect nothing directly.

However, it does give mobile companies a route for mobile backhaul, which may enhance the chances of future coverage. That will depend whether Gigaclear end up being able to deal with them on that basis.

And, of course, it opens up the possibilities of user-installed femto cells.

With reasonable broadband femtocells SureSignal et al come into play

Readily available microwave backhaul suggests that the constraint on coverage (whatever it is) won't be solved by fibre arriving. The economics of Gigaclear backhaul are far from "clear" anyway !

Femtocells will help individual households I guess, with indoor coverage.

I accept your point about not moaning about BT but making a positive case for rural broadband systems instead. Many of us in remote communities are doing that but it is harder than you might think.

First, many residents feel strongly that currently they are paying for a service - "real" broadband - that they do not receive, since the cost of a BT ADSL line in Market 1 is the same whether you get 8 Mbps or 0.25 Mbps.

Second, there is the unavoidable backhaul problem. In remote hilly/mountainous areas of Scotland (my patch) it is difficult or very expensive to install microwave backhaul because of the terrain and the need for power, so communities get forced back to the nearest BT exchange with vaguely respectable speeds.

Economies of scale are incredibly important. All the Gigaclear, B4RN, etc examples serve communities of 1,000+ properties relatively near to major towns. That is great, but there are many communities in Scotland with less than 1/10th of that number. Finding a model to serve 20-50 houses spread over 5 km and located more than 10 km from the nearest town/village is hard work, but that is what the final 1% (or 0.1%) looks like! For some, satellite is the only way but it has huge disadvantages for business use.

Utlimately, this is about what we want for remote rural communities. Other countries value and support them. Sometimes, the impression is given that the UK does not. This is not a plea for unlimited funds, but rather for the recognition that not everyone lives in suburbs or cute villages.

In reply to a post by gah789:

I accept your point about not moaning about BT but making a positive case for rural broadband systems instead. Many of us in remote communities are doing that but it is harder than you might think.

It is made hard because it is an easy sport for many people to do - bash BT - and can easily distract from real conversations.

And hard in widespread rural communities, because even within the community there are distance-based haves and have-nots. It becomes "easy" to divide and conquer when there are such differences, when the community really needs to stick together for the benefit of the whole.

First, many residents feel strongly that currently they are paying for a service - "real" broadband - that they do not receive, since the cost of a BT ADSL line in Market 1 is the same whether you get 8 Mbps or 0.25 Mbps.

I don't need to respond with the usual argument that the alternative measure for pricing, and that chosen by our regulators and marketers, is capacity or usage. Faster lines tend to use more, and tend to pick packages that cost more... so aren't actually paying the same.

However, that argument only tends to stick in people's minds once their connection is "fast enough" - which probably means fast enough to match with their patience levels.

Will 2Mbps be enough of a minimum to make more people think "fast enough"? I'm not sure it is quite enough for that.

Second, there is the unavoidable backhaul problem. In remote hilly/mountainous areas of Scotland (my patch) it is difficult or very expensive to install microwave backhaul because of the terrain and the need for power, so communities get forced back to the nearest BT exchange with vaguely respectable speeds.

I was reading something in the last few days about the North Yorkshire BDUK project, and caught a mention that they wanted the bidder to allow access points on the fibre network for community projects to connect to. The reference was probably in the documents on the "lessons learned" from the BDUK pilots, or where they talked about the different commercial models they could choose.

I wonder what the status is for the Highlands & Islands project?

Finding a model to serve 20-50 houses spread over 5 km and located more than 10 km from the nearest town/village is hard work, but that is what the final 1% (or 0.1%) looks like! For some, satellite is the only way but it has huge disadvantages for business use.

I believe that satellite capacity can only sustain around 2% of UK connections at best, and BDUK expects around 0.5% - 1.0%.

Utlimately, this is about what we want for remote rural communities. Other countries value and support them. Sometimes, the impression is given that the UK does not. This is not a plea for unlimited funds, but rather for the recognition that not everyone lives in suburbs or cute villages.

I suspect the answer comes from trying to treat the community as a whole, and coming up with a solution that caters for all needs - private & public, business & residential, using a variety of funding sources.

In reply to a post by gah789:

Utlimately, this is about what we want for remote rural communities. Other countries value and support them. Sometimes, the impression is given that the UK does not.

I wonder if this impression, of both the UK and other countries, isn't borne out completely, in reality?

I was looking at the graphing tool provided by the EU Digital Agenda project (from MrSaffron's article), where you can play around with a variety of the statistics. They don't tell you everything (especially about NGA), but do show some interesting features.

This graph (via tinyurl), for instance, shows the % of households connected in rural areas, over 2004 to 2012. When you first see it, there's just a few select "interesting" nations highlighted. If you "add all", many more countries get included - and show that the UK has been one of the front-running nations for the last 3 years or so.

Ironically, it is urban areas where we lag more.

I know speed is a very important factor in this, but I can't get a graph that gives anything relating actual speed to rural properties.

While it is not a perfect proxy, the penetration of ADSL in Market 1 exchanges - most of which fall in the rural EU category and in the usual meaning of the final 10% - was about 76% in late 2012. Adding in 3G & satellite the figures seem a bit a high but not impossible.

Of course, speed & reliability are what frustrate most people. There are those who want to watch the iPlayer or BT Sport or whatever. But our expectations are low, so even worse is the frequent loss of a connection. This is a problem of poor line quality which won't be altered by upgrading exchanges - or cabinets, not that we have any.

The Highlands & Islands project is proceeding slowly, as in other areas, but the major uncertainty is how far it will go beyond serving small towns to provide a fibre network that is accessible to small communities. In fact, this is more likely to be achieved through a separate network (SWAN or Scottish Wide Area Network) which is designed to serve public institutions - schools, health centres, etc - whose bandwidth may be shared provided that this does not fall foul of stupid State Aid restrictions.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

What this forum, this website, could truly do with is a positive evangelist for coverage of communities in the final 10%. Someone who wants those communities to benefit, yet can work in a supplier-agnostic fashion (and cope with the hits if the communities don't quite react quite so positively).

This is far to simplistic... because every community will have unique issues which any service supplier will need to take into account... even within the area which the Gigaclear network proposes to cover in my particular location, there are a host of special circumstances which will need to be resolved... the first hurdle is to convert the 'expressions of interest' into firm orders and this is where our particular scheme is progressing too slowly...

In my opinion, too much emphasis is being placed on who can provide the best technology...

In reply to a post by 1sta:

The question which needs to be asked is, 'what level of competition do you want in your area in 5 years time?'

At them moment there is no competition. I have to use a BT Openreach provided landline. If the Gigaclear project proceeds only then will there be real competition.

(Leaving aside satellite and mobile phone networks.)

In reply to a post by zom22:

I would have thought that the cost of Gigaclear (?£40/month) is enough to put many people off.

If you deduct the cost of a BT line rental, then at £37pm the Gigaclear prices are not that unreasonable.

To answer the question as to what competion do I myself want in 5 years time. I want ONE infrastructure supplier to my property and I want the ability to choose from whom I get the 'stuff' down the pipes/cables.
So:
Transco supplies the gas pipes - and I buy the gas from whom I want
Southern electric distribution supplies the cables and I buy my electric from whom I want.
BTOR supply the phone and/or fibre connection and I buy my voice and data from whom I want.
Thames Water supply the water pipes - but I can't yet buy water from whom I want.

The problem with that approach is that you are further from the real provider when it comes to complaining about quality. I can't buy my electricity from a more reliable supplier. I and forced to rely on EDF who are happy to let trees fall across their lines thus causing me power cuts. Getting Openreach to fix my telephone line is equally problematic. I have hopes that an underground Gigaclear fibre connection will be more reliable.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

At them moment there is no competition. I have to use a BT Openreach provided landline. If the Gigaclear project proceeds only then will there be real competition.

From my perspective, it could well be worth signing up with Gigaclear... just to ensure that there is a service capable of competing with BT Openreach. Imagine being able to list two competing broadband infrastructures in the sale particulars when putting your property on the market...

In reply to a post by 1sta:

From my perspective, it could well be worth signing up with Gigaclear... just to ensure that there is a service capable of competing with BT Openreach. Imagine being able to list two competing broadband infrastructures in the sale particulars when putting your property on the market...

I have signed, I am just hoping that enough of my neighbours will be like minded. Even a B&B that I stayed in recently offered wifi. These days hotels in the USA give you the wifi connect details with the room key(card) as a matter of course. Quite useful as I discovered that my laptop was actually quite good at finding local restaurants.

fixed line 2mbit will feel much snappier than sattelite.

latency has a big affect on speed more than people think.

eg. I can download at good speeds on 3G but browsing is pretty slow feels like dialup at times, yet it can stream HD videos etc.

I would to try and manage costs for the hard areas probably pick 4G and have isp's supply connectivity via 4G capable modems or dongles. As I think 4G has lower latency than 3G? and especially sattelite.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 15-Jul-13 17:02:14)

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

If you deduct the cost of a BT line rental, then at £37pm the Gigaclear prices are not that unreasonable.

But to many that's going to be 80% more than they pay now (£21.45 to Talk Talk for BB & line).

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

In reply to a post by zom22:

I would have thought that the cost of Gigaclear (?£40/month) is enough to put many people off.

If you deduct the cost of a BT line rental, then at £37pm the Gigaclear prices are not that unreasonable.

Back when I started this thread, I recall looking at the pricing options...

...and because I would want a static IP, I recall that I'd be forced onto a much higher tariff than I would really want or need - an extra £12 per month.

Back on my FTTC line, my static IP cost me a one-off £5. Not every ISP makes one available, but mine does so at a reasonable rate.

So for me, it would be a case of £50pm Gigaclear vs £20pm Plusnet.

And *that* highlights the problem with altnets such as Gigaclear - basically you have to "like it or lump it" with the packages that they choose to offer. If you fit with the offerings, then great. If you don't, you are left with Hobson's choice.

So having competition amongst retail-level ISPs might indeed take you one step farther from the line provider, but it enables competition over the value-added features.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

If you deduct the cost of a BT line rental, then at £37pm the Gigaclear prices are not that unreasonable.

But to many that's going to be 80% more than they pay now (£21.45 to Talk Talk for BB & line).

An FTTC solution from TT would cost more like £30pm, which I would argue is a better price comparison. Gigaclear appeals to residents of rural areas who can't get FTTC and may suffer sub 2mbps ADSL(2+) lines.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

...and because I would want a static IP, I recall that I'd be forced onto a much higher tariff than I would really want or need - an extra £12 per month.

AIUI Gigaclear will give you a static IP FOC. The manual for their router suggests that it does not support Dynamic DNS.

The people who aren't signing up may not have the money for an 80% increase in cost of broadband, or may have other priorities for that money, or may be content with what they have.

There must be some reason why FTTC takeup is so low in general.

A 10 Gbit/s symmetrical connection for £300/month may be excellent value, but that's irrelevant if you don't have the £300 or assign no value to the extra speed.

With Gigaclear you get the added factor of a supplier you never heard of and a monopoly retail proposition with no bundling, so there are some marketing potholes as well as price.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

With Gigaclear you get the added factor of a supplier you never heard of and a monopoly retail proposition with no bundling, so there are some marketing potholes as well as price.

No doubt the Gigaclear owners and directors will be evaluating their offerings in the light of BT Openreach's decision to begin evaluating exchanges in priority areas, see: Superfast Openreach

Plan... Do... Review... Adjust...

Edited by deleted (Tue 16-Jul-13 11:29:39)

In reply to a post by yarwell:

The people who aren't signing up may not have the money for an 80% increase in cost of broadband, or may have other priorities for that money, or may be content with what they have.

There must be some reason why FTTC takeup is so low in general.

In the Gigalcelar project that that interest me, 9% of residents signed up for the service very quickly. This figure has now risen to nearly 20% after several months. Take up in one affluent area which probably has better ADSL speeds has been poor.

A 10 Gbit/s symmetrical connection for £300/month may be excellent value, but that's irrelevant if you don't have the £300 or assign no value to the extra speed.

Where do you get the £300pm from?

With Gigaclear you get the added factor of a supplier you never heard of and a monopoly retail proposition with no bundling, so there are some marketing potholes as well as price.

Well the supplier that you have heard of does nothing. Gigaclear do now have a joint venture with Vonage, a SIP phone provider.

In the Gigalcelar project that that interest me, 9% of residents signed up for the service very quickly. This figure has now risen to nearly 20% after several months.

about the same as FTTC in general then. Interesting.

The Gigaclear referral code with vonage is neither here nor there AFAICS, but there's plenty of VOIP options. You can't bundle Gigaclear and TV or mobile.

My 10 GBit for £300 was to illustrate that value for money is only a ratio and only one factor in a purchase decision.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

AIUI Gigaclear will give you a static IP FOC.

Not according to their price list. The list of packages for retail use has a column specifically for static IP... and you have to take the 200Mbps package before that column says "yes".

The manual for their router suggests that it does not support Dynamic DNS.

Which makes things worse. For some, dynamic DNS is the alternative to a static IP that works successfully. You can install it on a PC instead, but that's a clunky solution that doesn't work for other devices, or if the PC is turned off.

It also wouldn't work for me, even if it were present. It is the static IP I need, not the DNS entry.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

In the Gigalcelar project that that interest me, 9% of residents signed up for the service very quickly. This figure has now risen to nearly 20% after several months.

If I lived where you do, I suspect I'd have been in the 9% that signed up for a lower package, and sorted out a static IP in a different way. It'd cost me about £12pm more than I pay today (if you include Vonage fees vs Line Rental/call package) for less speed, but if it were the only option I'd sure go for it.

Unfortunately, you've hit the same "glass ceiling" that BT hit too - that there are plenty of people who aren't persuaded that they need faster broadband.

In a city, that's fine - because BT will make their money from other people., and the statistics alone provide enough people.

In a small village, you really need to get some community spirit going, so that those people who haven't signed up yet do so - if for no other reason than a sense of community spirit.

That is why, many posts ago, I advocated the need for decent evangelists in this arena (BDUK projects are calling them "broadband champions"). Someone who can help achieve this sense of civic duty done for the good of the village.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Well the supplier that you have heard of does nothing.

One problem for altnets is that "the supplier who does nothing" is actually doing a lot, but hidden from view, and over a long period of time. Too long for the 9% but at a sufficient speed for the 80%.

Some of your stick-in-the-muds are just waiting to see if something eventually happens there.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

The problem with that approach is that you are further from the real provider when it comes to complaining about quality. I can't buy my electricity from a more reliable supplier. I and forced to rely on EDF who are happy to let trees fall across their lines thus causing me power cuts. Getting Openreach to fix my telephone line is equally problematic. I have hopes that an underground Gigaclear fibre connection will be more reliable.

It is not so much a question of reliability as it is a question of a choice between two comparable providers... this is where I believe the government money could have been used to give people a real choice... of course, the 'Under Evaluation' (UE) status to our exchange might be quickly resolved....