Government lies

I was entertained by a poster yesterday, and wondered, given where it was, whether the Government were trying to be ironic or insulting. I visited the quoted website and here is a quote directly from the Government's own web site for superfast broadband "Focus is now on the �final 5%� � those areas in the most remote and hardest to reach places in the UK that are not covered by existing plans" (my emphasis). Given that there are no plans at all for thousands of homes (including those in the building the poster was attached to) within earshot of Big Ben (even in sight of it from the fourth floor upwards), this can only be an outright lie.

This is far from a lie. The fact that you and I are both in central London and in that 5% doesn't mean that plans aren't underway for how to deal with that 5%. That the focus in on the last 5% doesn't mean that 95% can currently get fast broadband, just that current plans, when complete, should approach 95% availability.

What is misleading is the belief by some, including the writer of that quote, that only rural areas are in that 5%. A prime example being EO lines in non BDUK locations such as Birmingham and London.

I'm afraid MP Val Shawcross challenged the government on their actual plans for the 26% of London homes that cannot get so called superfast services. They told her categorically that there were no plans. She has a particular interest here as the MP covering Rotherhithe, where unless you are wealthy enough to live in a property Hyperopic would deign to bother with, you may as well live in the middle of Nowhereshire. This is also a common situation in council estates across London. The current government claim that all that are left are the 'most remote places' is therefore a lie. That is unless they consider places inside thethe division bell remote or hard to reach.

Where was this 26% of London figure from?

Greater London as a whole does very well for coverage. Don't have my own figures to hand

I think they like to "play on words" and manipulate the figures (as everyone does).

It may be a case that urban EO lines that are too far from the exchange to be exchange enabled have been "written off" the figures along with other situations.

I doubt we will ever hear a true statement of exact stats based upon 100% of live telephone lines.

That 26% figure for London premises is sheer nonsense. That would make London coverage considerably worse than the UK as a whole.

Any MP quoting that figure would be wildly misinformed. No comfort of course for the minority that don't have access, but a different approach will have to be taken than the area based BDUK process in otherwise well enabled cities,

I've just done some research on what Val Shawcross has been doing, and this is a blog item she wrote on the issues in Rotherhithe in September 2013. It seems to be a reasonably summary to me of the local issues and the problems with BDUK. She has written more up to date stuff since, but this one addresses BDUK too. The issue in that area is that it is ex-industrial and lacks "green boxes" so has a lot of long EO lines.

http://www.valshawcross.com/the-great-rotherhithe-br...

nb. well done to a constituency MP who is taking this seriously.

This is what Chris Condor has to say about the situation
Chris's Blog

In reply to a post by mikejp:

This is what Chris Condor has to say about the situation
Chris's Blog

facebook is blocked here

I have seen the same posters and online adverts, and they are laughable. I also live within earshot of Big Ben and have been told categorically by BT that I will never get fibre speeds.

A huge number of inner London homes (particularly post-war blocks of flats) are exchange only and will never be upgraded. I asked my local councillor about this (thinking that the council might have some interest) and she said that local councillors and MPs are hitting a brick wall on this.

There is absolutely nothing an individual consumer can do about this.

Who was it in BT that said that? Was it call centre staff, an engineer/installer, a planner, someone in senior manager, Chief Exec?

Depending on who told you would give some information around accuracy of comment. And I doubt anyone in true power would ever say "never". Nobody knows what new technologies are around the corner that could change the economics. Plus of course you may well have 4G and in future 5G - which both can give superfast speeds (dependent on what the individual defined as "fibre" speeds as that could be anything up to terabits per second given some tests that have been done).

26% of London homes that cannot get so called superfast services

This is complete and total absolute rubbish. This is nothing short of an out and out lie.

common situation in council estates across London

Yet another lie.

Edited by deleted (Mon 22-Dec-14 11:01:44)

Rather than people out and out saaying the OP is rubbish how about some evidence to the contrary ?

I'm not sure that deploying bragging rights about being the fastest ISP in the country is really saying much about "the situation" facing the large metropolis.

Chris regularly contends that the BDUK money should have been given to altnets to fibre the final 5%. Some nebulous arguments then follow about how this added "competition" (in reality, it will be hotspots of monopolies, where BT have already proven they don't wish to compete) will somehow force BT to provide fibre elsewhere.

B4RN works really well within the boundary it has constructed for itself: Huge takeup requires the targetted area to be almost exclusively a BT notspot, and requires the massive community buy-in that comes as a consequence. So much buy-in, that the community provides the volunteer workforce. That volunteer workforce needs to work somewhere - which isn't the public roads; this aspect depends on farmers (or other large-scale landowners) to provide access for the dig, and to do so with a cost-free wayleave. These farmers/land-owners are naturally placed to become part of the volunteer workforce over the land they own.

The parameters are: Big notspot; Community buy-in; Landowner buy-in (preferably few landowners with lots of land); Free wayleaves negotiated with a manageable number of bought-in landowners.

This model works well within those parameters, but it falls down outside those areas; it particularly loses traction when the community has some level of service, and wants to keep the freedom of choice of existing ISP bundles (esp Sky and TalkTalk), where broadband is seen as almost free. It also loses traction when the fibre can't be laid in fields; where land ownership amounts to a small garden, and wayleaves number in the thousands ... leading to the need to put fibre in the roads & pavements instead.

It is a brilliant model for its location, but it doesn't apply to The Smoke.

The onus is on the OP to provide a link to the statistic. As for evidence to the contrary, this is Ofcom's chart (which shows about 90% for NGA).


http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/cities-summary-r...

Interesting to see that Northern Ireland is better catered for, presumably because they've had a project running of several years.

Boris Johnson has declared a 99% target for London by 2018

http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2014/09/london...

In reply to a post by Desmond:

I'm afraid MP Val Shawcross challenged the government on their actual plans for the 26% of London homes that cannot get so called superfast services. They told her categorically that there were no plans. She has a particular interest here as the MP covering Rotherhithe, where unless you are wealthy enough to live in a property Hyperopic would deign to bother with, you may as well live in the middle of Nowhereshire. This is also a common situation in council estates across London. The current government claim that all that are left are the 'most remote places' is therefore a lie. That is unless they consider places inside thethe division bell remote or hard to reach.

The mistake the government has made is I think they have assumed urban areas are covered commercially and hence government programs have been targeted at rural areas.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 22-Dec-14 11:50:00)

Yes Rotherhithe does have lots of EO, but also now have Hyperoptic in some places. Relish coverage I think reaches over the Thames at that point and as part of Southwark the boroughs coverage is around 77% of fibre based broadband, or 72% at superfast speeds.

The problem was that London was considered as a whole, rather than at the individual borough level in terms of the first round of BDUK funding.

Absolutely nothing stopping individual mayor/boroughs/councils doing their own gap funding projects independent of BDUK though.

And the rural areas are complaining that the money has gone to urban areas.

Varies greatly from Borough to Borough, e.g. Kingston makes up for the deficit in places like Southwark

8% of households in Lewisham actually have option of FTTP from Openreach.

Exact to the point of irrefutable means spending a lot of money to do an independent audit of the BT and Virgin Media and other networks in the areas.

Have a very good feel and worked out figures

Andrew

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

And the rural areas are complaining that the money has gone to urban areas.

so how much BDUK funds have gone to urban areas?

To me its just the rural peeps have the loudest voice, they always complaining.

There's plenty of evidence that shows that 26% not being able to get fast broadband in London is an out and out lie and using such an incorrect figure totally devalues the rest of any statement. People should stick with the truth, it is far more powerful as even 5% without fast access is a disgrace.

To start with there is very significant coverage by VM. The OFCOM Infrastructure report published in October 2013 reported, for example, 780 of roughly 14,085 wired internet connections (5.5%) in SW9 had no access to a fast broadband connection and this ignores any possible access to cable. I used the now outdated Fixed Broadband Postcode Level Data spread sheet from October 2013. I did this in respect of Lambeth to highlight the problem of the hotspot I live where there are 75+ EO line at nearly 2Km from the exchange. This was one of only three significant not spots in SW9, and the only large cluster on the Vauxhall exchange, the other two being on the Nine Elms and Brixton exchanges with 79 and 57 connections respectively. No other clusters came close.

So yes, I have done my research and have figures to support my view that the figure of 26% is an outright lie. You can download the data from OFCOM and do your own research.

Whats the current coverage % for London? Anyone know?

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Rather than people out and out saaying the OP is rubbish how about some evidence to the contrary ?

How about this document?
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/c...

This is an Analysis Mason report attached to Ofcom's 2014 "Communications Market" report (dated August 2014). It details broadband availability in 11 cities, as of 2013.

Figure 1.1 show London having NGA availability of 88%, rising to 90% in 2015.

Section 3.3.1 shows availability figures:

VM's NGA availability amounts to 60%, with no change by 2015.

BT's NGA availability amounts to 84%, increasing to 85% by 2015.

The combined total gives NGA availability of 88%, rising to 90% by 2015; (NB: this means it hits the current BDUK target for 90% by 2015).

Of course, London is huge (section 3.1.3) - so those in the 10% amount to some 320,000 properties - no small amount (**). Figure 1.5 shows there are still 90,000 lines below 2Mbps. Plenty of room for complaints about being left out of the BDUK and UBF projects.

Incidentally, section 3.2.2 suggests that the Mayor and GLA have responsibility for broadband, and for choosing how the government (both central & local) subsidies are handed out. The mayor looks to be thinking "ultrafast", forgetting about the 10% that are being left out of the mere "superfast".

(**) - For comparison of size, note that North Yorkshire has a total of 380,000 properties, of which around 190,000 are in the NGA intervention area, and around 150,000 are due to get superfast provision through the BDUK project. Other counties have a similar size, though perhaps a smaller intervention area.

Edit: Add a comparison figure to show the scale of London's problem.

Edited by deleted (Mon 22-Dec-14 12:20:37)

The first wave BDUK projects are all listed at http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6582-magic-1-mill...

The problem is one persons rural is another persons urban. So lots of arguments over towns of 10,000+ people where BDUK is funding cabinets e.g. infill on estates or city centre business areas, or the out of town industrial parks seeing FTTP rolled out to them.

To keep it simple I mean actual city areas.

So not towns.

Thanks for the info Ill read that, at first look im quite surprised how poor coverage is in London, I always assumed it would be higher and they would (as always) have had the highest investment rate.

Looking at Glasgow its shockingly low, although inverness is awful.

Also the number of sub 2mb lines in London is alarming.

I think they must have thrown Inverness in there to fluff the figures lol (such a random city to choose)

Intersting info thanks!

To keep it simple I mean actual city areas.

So not towns.

One man's city is another man's town... especially if you accept the old definition of having a cathedral (hence St David's is the UK's smallest city at 2,000 people).

In my county, there is only one city, and it only comes fifth in the population lists within the county. Here, it is the towns that make up the majority of the commercial deployment.

Never simple...

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

Interesting to see that Northern Ireland is better catered for, presumably because they've had a project running of several years.

Yes - NI had a quasi-BDUK project running earlier, rather like Cornwall. The NI cities ended up with good coverage, and Derry/Londonderry was trumpted by BT as the first city where every cabinet was upgraded.

The project didn't end up with quite such good coverage in the rural areas, and NI has a (relatively) large proportion of its population out there, with a lot of lines that are distant from the cabinet ... so there is a follow-up project that looks closer to the current BDUK projects.

Boris Johnson has declared a 99% target for London by 2018

I don't think I've seen him refer to the merely superfast before, so it is good to see. However, he must be playing with a very weak hand - he has no budget to allocate to subsidise any of this work, so he has to just "persuade".

The figure is from something I read earlier in the year. Thinking back I think that figure was very specific to a borough. Camden I think. So I apologise for generalising. The article in question was pointing out the lies and half truths being peddled by BT and the Government in relation to coverage.It still does not change the fact that to say the Government only has the most remote and hard to reach places to deal with is a lie. They need only walk over Westminster Bridge to find thousands of homes with no plans at all covering them.

Shoreditch, supposedly the epicentre of tech in London, was singled out as being one of the worst places for superfast if you actually lived there. Why? because most of the population are not hipsters, living in expensive flats and working in tech. Instead, they live on council estates with EO lines. To suggest Hyperoptic as an alternative is adding injury to insult. Please feel free to point to a council estate they have ever wired up. Relish are great so long as you want a crippled service when it comes to uplinks to you from outside. Moreover, service is very variable. I could get 30Mb when I tried them (if the router was on a shelf on the first floor by the window) Down the road, a friend tried them and it essentially would not work at all.

"Hard to reach" doesn't mean you need a mountaineering guide in order to get there.

Essentially, it really means "expensive to reach" ... and that is the same problem for these areas of London as it is in the sparsest parts of the UK.

This is especially true for EO lines - where BT has maintained a very consistent stance that subsidy is required to bridge the gap to being commercially viable. I don't recall a single instance of EO lines being handled outside a subsidy programme.

It is vital, to BT, for them to be consistent over that gap: If they suddenly decide to make Shoreditch a special case, they will find 40+ other BDUK projects demanding a re-assessment of the subsidy being paid there.

London has no programme for allocating subsidies for mere superfast speed. If it is to get EO lines upgraded, something else needs to happen - perhaps by taking MCM's example, and organising a community-funded upgrade. This is a process happening in villages across the UK on top of BDUK. Why not in Shoreditch too?

Please feel free to point to a council estate they have ever wired up.

Which London council estates have no access to either VM or a BT FTTC connection? I don't believe there are any in Lambeth but there may be some. One of the worst areas is Rotherhithe in Southwark where there are many EO lines often due to the previous low residential density of the area with few PCPs before the extensive redevelopment of the area.

Mine and many others. VM is only available where the council allowed it to be installed over their land and Southwark often did not. Many estates built over the years (long before anyone thought of the internet) were also put on EO. That is not necessarily the docklands type locations either. The area generally has many of the same issues that affect the West End and City when it comes to EO lines.

I'd add in all of this that I have no bug bear about not having access to fibre. I have no need of it. I am just sick of government hyperbole suggesting the UK is so great and that coverage is so wide, when it patently isn't even right under the noses of the people suggesting it is.

I am just sick of government hyperbole suggesting the UK is so great and that coverage is so wide

That you are in the final 5 or 10% does not mean that the government is lying. The article quite clearly states that the government is PLANNING for the final 5% or so NOT that 95% can currently get faster broadband. The main error being that it then implies the 5% is primarily rural and we both know that to be incorrect. Your original post and its title is disingenuous at best and itself nothing short of a lie.

Out of curiosity what exactly have YOU done about solving your problem of having an EO line? Anything more than post untruths? I live on a late 1980s brownfield development in Lambeth of 75 properties all with EO lines and VM cable running along the street. VM won't connect us. BT, a private company answerable to its shareholders, says a network rearrangement is commercially non-viable. No BDUK for London and the mayor has no funds. So what did I do, rather than complain I campaigned and raised the necessary funds (£18k or so) to pay BT for a network rearrangement and we are by no means wealthy although most are at least in employment. If you were desperate for faster broadband, and you say you aren't, you could always consider doing what we have done.

I don't need to solve my EO line problem as I don't have a problem. I get 19MB and it isn't a problem to me (other than having to pay for a land line that no telephone has been connected to in 5 years). That aside, I suspect that in the grand scheme of things most council estate residents would have other priorities for £18K (even if they could raise such a sum) than a better broadband service. The digital divide in the UK is not the simplistic one about rural and urban that the government would have you believe with their comments about remote and hard to reach..

To suggest Hyperoptic as an alternative is adding injury to insult. Please feel free to point to a council estate they have ever wired up.

From Val Shawcross's blog:
"Because people locally speak well of the infrastructure and service this company provides we introduced Hyperoptic to the Council, in particular the Housing department. They have now made a proposal to potentially install Hyperoptic services to just over 11,000 units where the Council is the freeholder. There are still surveys and some other work to be done before this gets signed off. But potentially this could be a very welcome opportunity for residents on some Council estates."

While it is commendable of anyone to rally round and arrange for re arrangement via BT surely in BDUK areas that should be done as matter of course. That is the type of thing the govenment seems to skim right over.

Lets say we have a town and in the town 3% of lines are EO, the remaining 97% are fibre enabled then they move on. So of that 97% I would love to see the figures showing economic viability and how much BDUK put into the pot to get them enabled. The remaining 3% will have watched their house prices deplete and be entirely left out of the superfast coverage. I find it laughable that the party line for this is to pay for it yourself at 18k.

Desmond is lucky to have good speeds, others are not so lucky. I would put myself in the bracket of usable speeds (slightly over 3mb). Neighbours are between 1 and 2mb. But still not the worste.

As this project rolls on it seems all they care about now is the people in the rural areas which IMHO should have been the first port of call and in fill people based on pure speed as opposed to the easiest fix.

Would be really nice if they came out and said who wont be included and who will be missed out completely. By now they must have the data, and surely the Government should be encouraging local councils to facilitate and arrange for those who are to be left out to consider private funding. As it stands they dont care nor do they have any interest in answering any questions.

The whole project reeks of propeganda and fudged figures.

Potential and will are different things. If only Southwark had allowed VM to cable estates in the past, instead of refusing or demanding money for access rights as they did on the estate where I lived, there wouldn't be so much of a problem now.

the other reason cabinet might be omitted under BDUK and described as the last x% is that its population demographic is not good.
By this I mean the cabinet is situated such that the majority of the residences it feeds in its service area are located a long way from the cabinet. So upgrading it would mean that a much smaller number than usual are able to get a true superfast grade of service and the rest gets...well something less.

So in terms of £ costs per resident now able to get SFBB its a rather expensive project. So they are left off the BDUK program.
To fix such cab areas properly would require FTTrN/FTTdp or a new cabinet in the village/centre of population density.

I agree that lack of fast broadband is far from being just a rural problem and only in part being addressed by BDUK with many major areas such as the cities excluded from such funding however who should pay? Why shouldn't the end users pick up the bill, at least in part? Have we become so indoctrinated by the welfare state that we expect the government, of whatever colour, to do everything for us and have forgotten how to help ourselves?

You mention depressed property prices where fast broadband is not available. This was indeed a driving force in our raising the funds for our network rearrangement. A contribution of £240 or so per property being far less than the potential loss of value for each property. Other such clusters are free to do the same. We considered waiting to see how the final 5% would be dealt with but decided we were not prepared to wait until 2020 and that we wanted faster broadband sooner rather than later or even never.

Would be really nice if they came out and said who wont be included and who will be missed out completely.

Indeed and this will hopefully become available once the Government and others have decided how to approach the final 5% regardless of where that 5% might be, city or desolate moorland.

The whole project reeks of propeganda and fudged figures.

My point entirely and why I pointed out the irony of a huge poster, on a building a few minutes walk from Westminster, where no resident can get these services, and where speeds are no where near as good as I get, and where they are told there are no plans at present for them to ever get these services. I'm sure they will one day, but to stick a huge poster up on their building, pointing people to a web site telling everyone how great the government is doing, is rubbing people's noses in it somewhat. I wonder would they be so keen to shove a huge poster up on the side of a failing hospital advertising how well the NHS is doing?

I wonder how many Tory front benchers have slow internet access lol, that would have been rolled out in Phase 1 to both their homes and they would have the bare faced cheeck to claim the internet bill on their expenses.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

The digital divide in the UK is not the simplistic one about rural and urban that the government would have you believe with their comments about remote and hard to reach..

Again, it is easy for a large print advert to concentrate on one or two bullets, but the full programme isn't just about the tech. Making access affordable is one of the bullets often missed, and includes funds for building business skills.

Digital inclusion for individuals is also recognised, but under different schemes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/governmen...

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

I wonder how many Tory front benchers have slow internet access lol, that would have been rolled out in Phase 1 to both their homes and they would have the bare faced cheeck to claim the internet bill on their expenses.

They will probably pay for a commercial/business bespoke solution involving leased/bonded lines.
Those seriously well paid people I know do - they don't waste time on cheap & cheerful domestic broadband along with rubbish call centres wanting you to test the master socket....again.
As ever if you want a faster broadband and a proper service start paying for it.

I don't think they count EOLs in that 5% do they?

Be happy that you are on a cabinet and not EO, which very low chance of ever being upgraded.

I am on an EO line. I very much doubt I will never be able to get a better service than the one I have now. The idea of that is utter nonsense, even if there are no plans to do anything as of today. Whether I need it is another matter entirely. At present the answer is no and I'm not sure when I might. It is not why I started the thread.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

The whole project reeks of propeganda and fudged figures.

My point entirely

Some people are unable to comprehend how large a project is needed for anything close to a national rollout. If they, and their mates down the pub, don't benefit, the numbers must be wrong and being fudged. Its all a conspiracy!

Even a 90% target leaves out nearly 3 million properties. You could do the rest of the country, and leave London entirely unserved, and get that result.

There are probably many people in rural UK who think that should indeed happen...

The upshot is that it is a lot of people to be left out.

but to stick a huge poster up on their building, pointing people to a web site telling everyone how great the government is doing, is rubbing people's noses in it somewhat

What are they supposed to do? Keep the whole thing quiet because there are one or two overly-sensitive souls around?

The thing is ... if more people sign up to SFBB, then the higher the takeup figure. The higher that goes, the more the clawback provisions trigger, and the more money goes back to councils for re-investment into the harder 5%.

The government have realised that they can recycle the funding this way, and have to put no extra money in themselves, if only they can persuade people to sign up. It isn't a surprise to see them bigging it up.

Who knows - If BT get persuaded that people really want it, maybe they'll start to cover London more.

Some people are unable to comprehend how large a project is needed for anything close to a national rollout. If they, and their mates down the pub, don't benefit, the numbers must be wrong and being fudged. Its all a conspiracy!

As I feel has been demonstrated by some of the posts in this thread.

I am not using my own definition but the governments

if it has city status officially then I see it as city, but I mean only the city not the surrounding areas, so basically inside the welcome to X city signs.

Obviously they a business, they need to be somewhat sensible with what they spend, with that said I think there has been political intervention, lots of the early rollout was in villages and rural towns, which doesnt make sense, there is a reason why just about every other country leaves rural alone and invests only in densely populated areas, BT seemed an exception to that rule for some reason which only they know why.

I know someone told me the cities came later because they were originally planned to be FTTP, but I find it hard to believe parts of london are less of a business case than some village with a few hundred people.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Please feel free to point to a council estate they have ever wired up.

Which London council estates have no access to either VM or a BT FTTC connection? I don't believe there are any in Lambeth but there may be some. One of the worst areas is Rotherhithe in Southwark where there are many EO lines often due to the previous low residential density of the area with few PCPs before the extensive redevelopment of the area.

My earlier post referred exactly to Lambeth. Apparently Lambeth has a huge problem due to many EO lines going to many post-war flats.

Virgin Media in council estates? If only! FTTC on EO lines? Again, if only!

There is a cabinet right outside my building, but my line goes straight past it to the exchange. There are no plans anyway for my estate to be updated. Ever.

Top 10 areas in descending order for Openreach FTTP coverage (as percentage of households in area) are:

Cornwall
Waltham Forest
Milton Keynes
York
Lewisham
Redbridge
Newham
Sir y Fflint - Flintshire
Surrey County
Brent

Top 10 for amount of VM cable
Luton
Kingston upon Thames
Enfield
Barking and Dagenham
City of Portsmouth
The City of Brighton and Hove
Merton
Sutton
Reading
Redbridge

Top 10 for fibre based (i.e. FTTC/FTTP/Cable)
Oldham District
Bracknell Forest
Havering
Isles of Scilly
Surrey County
Enfield
Ealing
Kingston upon Thames
Barking and Dagenham
Harrow

Top 10 when you add a superfast of 30 Mbps qualifier (i.e. exclude long FTTC)
Enfield
Havering
Kingston upon Thames
Oldham District
Harrow
Barking and Dagenham
Luton
Ealing
Sutton
Hackney

The bad areas, i.e. thought to have most lines under 2 Mbps as a percentage of premises
Isles of Scilly
Sir Ynys Mon - Isle of Anglesey
Cornwall
Shetland Islands
North Yorkshire County
Gwynedd - Gwynedd
Moray
Tower Hamlets
Sandwell District
Aberdeenshire

Some of us spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to keep track of all of these sorts of things.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Obviously they a business, they need to be somewhat sensible with what they spend, with that said I think there has been political intervention, lots of the early rollout was in villages and rural towns, which doesnt make sense, there is a reason why just about every other country leaves rural alone and invests only in densely populated areas, BT seemed an exception to that rule for some reason which only they know why.

I know someone told me the cities came later because they were originally planned to be FTTP, but I find it hard to believe parts of london are less of a business case than some village with a few hundred people.

One thing to remember is that in a village there might be all of them (a few hundred) connected to a single cab, whilst in London, less than that connected to that specific cab.

For BT, it's all about potential ROI.

For BDUK? Maybe keeping the local MP's hearing intact

In reply to a post by Desmond:

Given that there are no plans at all for thousands of homes (including those in the building the poster was attached to) within earshot of Big Ben (even in sight of it from the fourth floor upwards), this can only be an outright lie.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

VM is only available where the council allowed it to be installed over their land and Southwark often did not.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

If only Southwark had allowed VM to cable estates in the past, instead of refusing or demanding money for access rights as they did on the estate where I lived, there wouldn't be so much of a problem now.

It seems unclear to me where exactly you are trying to apportion blame.

In your OP you seem to be saying the Government is "lying", whereas statistical evidence in this topic shows they aren't.

Then in another post you say it is Southwark council who is at fault for not allowing VM to cable estates in the past in that particular area.

Out of interest what is the Government (by that I mean any Government of any political persuasion), supposed to do if local councils put spanners in the works?

In reply to a post by Desmond:

Please feel free to point to a council estate they have ever wired up.

Lanfranc Estate, Bow, E3. That is one I know of. That is a sprawling rabbit warren of about 1000 flats.

Lanfranc Estate had VM cable, but the opposite of Roman Road (where all the shops and businesses are), wasn't wired up to cable initially (it may be now though).

My earlier post referred exactly to Lambeth. Apparently Lambeth has a huge problem due to many EO lines going to many post-war flats.

I do not believe that to be the case. For example SW9 Stockwell which is part of Lambeth has just 3 significant EO clusters none of which are council estates. 5.5% of the phone lines in SW9 did not have access to fast broadband in 2013, this includes many that are not EO.

Virgin Media in council estates?

Yes, Myatt's Fields for one of many although some of the newer properties on MF do not have VM however they all have access to FTTC.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Some people are unable to comprehend how large a project is needed for anything close to a national rollout. If they, and their mates down the pub, don't benefit, the numbers must be wrong and being fudged. Its all a conspiracy!

Even a 90% target leaves out nearly 3 million properties. You could do the rest of the country, and leave London entirely unserved, and get that result.

There are probably many people in rural UK who think that should indeed happen...

The upshot is that it is a lot of people to be left out.

London is over 12% of the UK population, so that is a lot more than 3%

People do understand the magnitude of the project, whats in question is the lack of accurate and meaningful information. Lets leave aside who discussed what down the pub and look at what many people want to know. Currently they are giving little to no information. I am sure I am not alone in having many enquiries ignored at local level BDUK.

It is public monies that is being spent yet the manner in which it is being spent is extremly cloak and dagger. They must know by now exactly what the in fills will be yet still nothing is said. Is that due to incompitence or the fact their is an election round the corner?

I am resigned to what speeds I have, now it is the mere priciple of yet another fiasco.

People want information and yes the vast majority of those people who want information are those who are left out (obviously), and that is the information that is being withheld.

The whole project is broken up into segments (regions) and they do have the information yet are withholding it. So people naturaly fill in the blanks and suspect corruption. I dont think it is a case of "people down the pub" being so stupid that they don't "comprehend" the magnitude of the project.

Simplisity of it is they will know who will be left out yet are not coming out and saying so. Typical politics

Personnaly I think a far greater use of the BDUK monies would have been to upgrade the current infrastructure to a standard that 100% of end users have access to, eliminating all EO lines where psyically possible, upgrading the rural areas then rolling out fibre where not "economicly viable" (ie where the BDUK monies are needed). In a nutshell ensuring everyone has access to usable broadband first then adding the speed later.

I have just returned from Arrochar (near Loch Lomond) and the internet in almost all areas was utterly dreadful, almost un usable for simple stuff like emails. That is where the money should have initialy been ivested, places like that. Not upgrading people who already have fast internet.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

I don't need to solve my EO line problem as I don't have a problem. I get 19MB and it isn't a problem to me (other than having to pay for a land line that no telephone has been connected to in 5 years).

But your modem has been connected to it, yes?

The voice service that you haven't been using has probably been costing you a pound a month. Most of the cost of line rental goes on exactly what the name implies. The costs associated with maintaining the copper link - without which your ADSL service will not function

The seed fund of £530m was not enough to upgrade 100% of people to an equal standard, plus the only tech that can give equal speeds no matter what location is FTTH/P.

A LOT of work has been going on to eliminate EO lines, seeing plenty that are getting cabinets now, with fibre twins following on.

There was no variable sized pot of money from Central Government, it was a simple here is £530m shared out how we think is fair and we want you to hit this target, with the existing rules.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I am not using my own definition but the governments

if it has city status officially then I see it as city, but I mean only the city not the surrounding areas, so basically inside the welcome to X city signs.

So, for "London" you only include the City of London, Square Mile with a population of 7500 and the City of Westminster with 220,000

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The seed fund of £530m was not enough to upgrade 100% of people to an equal standard, plus the only tech that can give equal speeds no matter what location is FTTH/P.

A LOT of work has been going on to eliminate EO lines, seeing plenty that are getting cabinets now, with fibre twins following on.

There was no variable sized pot of money from Central Government, it was a simple here is £530m shared out how we think is fair and we want you to hit this target, with the existing rules.

By upgrading I merely meant upgrading to a point where 100% of people had access to over 2mb as standard and while at it upgrading EO to the standard of being fed by a cabinet thus making the infrastructure equatable accross the UK (in effect future proofing). Then they should have assisted with the roll out.

I am also wondering if BDUK cash was used to assist funding where Openreach would have entually upgraded to Fibre anyway. To me that is a major question and would serve to enforce the feeling that they have used the money to "speed" things up as opposed to the wider improvement for more people.

What has happened is the BDUK has created a massive divide and thrown millions into broadband poverty.

Whatever way you paint the picture the black / not spots should have been dealt with first.

Deal with the not-spots and you create new black/not spots as then you have people moaning they are only getting 2.3 Mbps, when those upgraded are enjoying a lot more.

The BDUK project needed to be a LOT larger to do what everyone wants, and needed to be massively larger if it was to avoid creating a divide.

Am sure that Openreach would have done more FTTC if the BDUK process did not happen, but probably over a much longer time scale.

Nothing stopping counties giving out subsidy vouchers for satellite in the short term or funding fixed wireless as a stop gap which some are.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Deal with the not-spots and you create new black/not spots as then you have people moaning they are only getting 2.3 Mbps, when those upgraded are enjoying a lot more.

100% disagree, currently there are a lot of sub 2mb people out there, exactly how many we will never know (see thread title for why).

How would upgrading them first cause others to moan? I wasnt meaning provide those people with fibre I was meaning upgrade the netwrok for them to the current standard, THEN start the fibre roll out, in the meanwhile Openeraeach could trundle on with the economicly viable areas. By no means did I mean give all EO and rural lines fibre or superfast anything, just drag them out of the dark ages.

Instead they opted to throw them further into the dark ages, which is wrong.

Just to add by my own theory I would not benefit in the least my internet would still be 3.5mb, I would still be 2.7k meters from the exchange as the crow flies., I would still be in a cluster of 150+ where fibre would be last in the list, however those further away than me (in the urban areas) would benefit greatly with usable broadband. My only benefit would be knowing that perhaps one day and also I may benefit from the line being shortened (openrach claim it is well over 5k meters long). but thats all by the by.

Upgradind the infrastructure should have been the first port of call regardless of how anyone spins in. Thats my opinion of course and everyone is entitled to one

The 2Mbps first was the labour plan in 2010 no plans started with a deadline of 2012. Governments changed and went for superfast

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The 2Mbps first was the labour plan in 2010 no plans started with a deadline of 2012. Governments changed and went for superfast

LOL so we should blame the Tory's

I do feel really sorry for those with sub 2mb speeds, no netflix no online gaming etc, must be really chronic. All while the Govt are blowing the super speed trumpet and throwing cash at getting statistics quicker.

If creating a massive divide was the Tory's aim then job done, oh wait that is the aim of the Tory's lol.

Thats made my day

They couldn't have fixed the sub 2Mb/s without changing the technology. The only sensible way to fix sub 2Mb/s is to shorten the lines to the active equipment. To do that they have to put in cabinets with powered DSLAM hardware. It would be silly to do that with ADSL when VDSL was an available tech. So, better to do FTTC which would mean upgrading those people and therefore creating a new divide.

The fact is there will always be a divide with new technology. The costs and timescales for rollout mean some will get it first and others will never get it.

I live in a fairly well off city and yet we don't get 3G from most mobile providers. 4G doesn't exist here at all yet. Even providers that have 3G are patchy and in some cases in the city centre would not even give enough signal to make a phone call. Whereas others in the country had great 3G and now have 4G. But, I understand that there are economics at play that make our city difficult to provide and that it doesn't come at the top of anyone's list.

It is a relatively long project. With targets of 90-95% the divide is not that big - once the project is finished. Economically it may be impossible to hit 100%.

I know my own county has a target of 100% greater than 2Mb/s and I think about 95% on fibre (and 90% superfast). That doesn't leave a "massive" divide. But then the people getting 30Mb/s will complain that others will be able to get 100Mb/s - and a new divide is born.

Until the whole country has exactly the same provision there will be a divide. And if you want to see the ultimate divide look at the people that can get Gigaclear and the likes at 1Gb/s.

All understandable, but with Internet becoming such a day to day thing for everyone it becomes much like a utility. At the moment some people do not have that utility at a usable standard.

There will always be a divide granted but they should have ensured everyone was at least on a usable standard first and foremost. OR the alternative and decent thing to do would be to come forward and be clear with what exactly they intend to do with the rural and EO people all the way down to district level.

At the moment the party line seems to be "you wont be left behind", well everyone sees those goalposts moving at a constant rate. Many people are tired of the spin from the government about this and get no where. I am annoyed when I hear how stuff like gigaclear is becoming available (in a envious way), however I think those who cant even access catchup tv, netflix, online gaming etc must be raging about it.

When the divide is those that can and those that cant at a basic level then thats where it is at its worse. Ensuring all can at a basic level would be the best starter for ten and then those who can get super dooper broadband, well good for them

Being able to say 100% of people in the UK have access to domestic broadband should be the initial yard stick.

I often laugh as I lease 2 * 10GB servers and for me to get files from the servers to home takes forever, yet a friend 2 streets away can get the same files in minutes.

Being able to say 100% of people in the UK have access to domestic broadband should be the initial yard stick.

That's commendable and perhaps the same should be said for both mains gas and mains sewerage, for both of which the availability in the UK is far from 100%. Further when main sewerage is provided to an area which previously relied on septic tanks the residents are expected to contribute towards the installation costs.

however I think those who cant even access catchup tv, netflix, online gaming etc must be raging about it.

When the divide is those that can and those that cant at a basic level then thats where it is at its worse

Trouble is how you define "basic level". You have defined as catchup tv, Netflix, online gaming.

Others will describe it as basic internet shopping. Yet more will describe it as the ability to stream HD video on multiple devices.

Each of these has different speed requirements. Todays basic level is tomorrow's "too slow". I started on 512Kb/s on Broadband - it was super fast and plenty to do everything that was available at the time.

Nowadays 2Mb/s that is the current target isn't enough for a family who want to do some HD streaming, a bit of gaming, some facebook, etc.

The technology is moving faster than can be kept pace with on a national basis. No sooner have BT got to a reasonable percentage of people having 512Kb but 1Mb is needed. Then they start getting that out and 2Mb becomes the "go to" speed. Then 8Mbs. Then 24Mb. Some people are now calling for 100Mb and others feel gigabit is the only way.

It has been a movable feast ever since the Internet was invented and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The government and BT are constantly chasing what people consider to be the "basic" requirement - and as things currently stand they will never be able to reach it for all because to keep up with the world economy you have to keep on pushing the goalposts.

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The 2Mbps first was the labour plan in 2010 no plans started with a deadline of 2012. Governments changed and went for superfast

LOL so we should blame the Tory's

I do feel really sorry for those with sub 2mb speeds, no netflix no online gaming etc, must be really chronic.

If only there were some other way to deliver such vital content to people such as a national radio-based broadcasting network or some kind of storage media that can be readily purchased or sent through the post.

As Mr Saffron has mentioned: 'Basic' is a relative term and a movable feast. Just how much money am I supposed to pay via taxation to ensure that everyone has access to Game of Thrones the day of its UK release?

In reply to a post by ian72:

however I think those who cant even access catchup tv, netflix, online gaming etc must be raging about it.

When the divide is those that can and those that cant at a basic level then thats where it is at its worse

Trouble is how you define "basic level". You have defined as catchup tv, Netflix, online gaming.

Others will describe it as basic internet shopping. Yet more will describe it as the ability to stream HD video on multiple devices.

Basic as in 2mb minimum which will allow for services such as netflix, bbc iplayer, gaming etc introductory level

Anything over and above is a luxury for some, normal for most non existstant for many

Ian when you had 512 internet was netflix, iPlayer etc about..........I remember waiting almost a day for Attack of the Clones to download, but that was normal back then. Some people are still suffering those speeds, would you be happy if you were one of them and hearing about how others will soon be getting GB speeds and how the Govt. have ploughed cash into an easy fix, knowing full well you will never get such speeds and your home just had tens of thousands dropped off the value to cop.

To make it worse no investment has been considered to even informing these people of the intentions for them. Its just a case of ahh "<<<insert explitive F bomb>> Them", they are just a statistic.

As for the latter comment on tax , lets have a look at the billions being ploughed into a high speed railway that only a fraction of the country will ever use or benefit from. Why should a penny of my taxes go to fund that? The Olympics was another. That's a false statement as examples are everywhere. No one mentioned using any extra money, I was criticising the USE of money from the offset and lack of communication.

2mb is enough to ensure you have a 720p or 1080p version of your favourite show (including Game of Thrones) sitting waiting for you in the morning (assuming you set up irssi / flexget/ rss or something similar). Bad example as sky screen it hours after USA but we get the gist. Fibre would mean you could stream it in HD. Main thing here is if the 2mb base line was for 100% of people then 100% of people would have that option.

Perhaps what they should do is alter the whole leasing a telephone line system and levvy those with fibre and higher speeds using a fair and equitable cosing system and pass on the proffits to making sure everyone has a fair shot at the race. Pay for what you get. Lets face it many of us have mobile phones and only use the telephone line for broadband, OFCOM should be starting to look at enforcing a fair system on line rental based upon what you use the line for.

But 2Mb is the current target for everyone. That is what was pledged. It just happens they are also trying to rollout better than that to 90% at the same time.

What I was trying to say was goalposts are ever moving. A network is designed for the current target and before you are half way through delivering a new target is set. This country I suspect wouldn't survive if we had said "just deliver 2Mb to everyone and forget anything faster until that is done".

As far as HS2 and the likes is concerned then I don't generally make comments of "don't do that do this" because the decisions are too large and not comparable for me. Personally I would just drop HS2 altogether and reduce the deficit - but then I don't have to juggle budgets, people's calls for "I want this", deficits, etc.

And have you not noticed that fibre costs more than standard ADSL? If you start taxing fibre then people will stop buying it, there will be no reason to roll it out, government won't make any money and the UK Internet scene will quickly stagnate and be overtaken by every other part of the world - at which point companies will leave the UK as the workforce won't have the Internet needed to do modern working.

I think you are viewing this all in too simplistic a fashion. This is a highly complex subject that is not as simple as "just give 2Mb to everyone". Neither the economics or the technology can support that view (in my opinion).

Ian the tax comments were aimed at Andrue.

Are you trying to say that by concentrating on getting people to 2MB as minimum would somehow scupper the whole project? From my point of view it would have saved cash, while doing that Openreach would still be deploying fibre in areas where they could generate a proffit. If you think for one minute at the moment they are not using any BDUK money to deploy proffitable cabinets (saving themselves cash while doing so) then I think that is very naieve. In my opinion of course and my own speculation.

Technology can support 2MB to everyone, issue is they opted not to go down that path in that order. You said they pledged 2MB for everyone then later on said neither the economics or technology can support this. So effectively you are saying the Government lied in your opinion?

Case and point of the whole thread.

The government have said 2Mb for all by 2015 (presumably the end of). They also said 90% to have super fast by the same time.

The ISPs/providers were asked to provide detail for BDUK projects as to areas that would be covered under commercial footprint. Those areas of out of scope for BDUK as they cannot be used due to EU funding requirements. It is down to audit office and EU to audit the projects to ensure this is being abided by - if it isn't then it is a breach of EU law.

There is nothing to say that only doing 2Mb and ignoring fibre would have resulted in anything quicker. For many people the solution to get the 2Mb is FTTC - anything else would have been cost prohibitive. So, if FTTC had been ruled out then there wouldn't have been an alterative to get 2Mb to people via phone lines - in which case satellite and mobile networks would have been the only potentially viable options.

The other thing with BDUK is that there is a coverage threshold in each area. If that threshold is broken then BT starts paying back a percentage of earnings. So, if they enable a viable area then it is likely that money will come back to the BDUK project which can then be used to further expand the network.

I am not saying this is perfect but saying "just deliver 2Mb to everyone and don't do fibre" does not work and would have almost certainly been very little quicker than the way it is being done now.

And if people want more than 2Mb connection speed it is available to nearly everyone. Satellite is an option - it currently appears to be oversubscribed and is high latency but for many purposes it would be adequate.

Problem with that Ian is ISP's cant provide any accurate data. Some say I can get up to 80mb, some say up to 15mb, some are realistic and say between 1.5mb and 2mb. I have neighbours who are <2mb. We all are on the same "pole", I dont forsee any upgrade for anyone on that pole. Fact is they wont get accurate data to perform a decent audit. God damn me for registering speed tests lol ive stuffed it for the whole street

I enquired about satelite to Digital Scotland (the BDUK folk here) and they said that is not an option. I dont see 4G being an option either as you already need to virtually lean out windows to get 3G. So i really dont know for people like myself. Too far from the exchange, too far from a 3G antena and too few a poulation for anyone to give a hoot.

Does anyone actually believe they will provide a minimum of 2mb broadband to everyone by 2016? I sure dont.

They have said they are working on new technology, well thats nice and a broad statement. I am sure people are working on warp drives and 'laser beams on freekin sharks' (ala austin powers). I wonder which one will come first !

I vote the sharks!

ian - "The government have said 2Mb for all by 2015 (presumably the end of)." and as the thread title says, they have broken that pledga and it will not have happened by 2017 either., Simple. 'Broken their pledge' = a euphemism for 'Government lies'

Why is satellite not an option? You can order that without recourse to any bduk project

In reply to a post by ian72:

Until the whole country has exactly the same provision there will be a divide. And if you want to see the ultimate divide look at the people that can get Gigaclear and the likes at 1Gb/s.

Or the cherry picked areas where BT have decided to roll out FTTP on a somewhat random basis - such as in Cornwall where single rural farmhouses have been given FTTP, or towns and villages where half the street is on FTTP and the other FTTC - or even as odd as a couple of poles in a part of down being FTTPed with everyone else surrounding iton FTTC. The lucky few who can have 330Mbit guaranteed, today, compared to everyone else who probably won't get 80Mbit.

In my own village, they've FTTPed one road, that could easily have supported FTTC (it's not EO), whereas much longer roads like mine are FTTC despite the cabinet being at one end, and the others on the end of a very long line might struggle to get any serious speed on VDSL. In a neighbouring village they trialled installing a copper PCP on some EO lines, so that the FTTC cabinet could be installed.

I just assume that BT flips a coin to choose a technology (weighted to prefer FTTC, of course) or they throw a dart at a map and roll out FTTP to where it goes

Edited by deleted (Tue 23-Dec-14 18:50:35)

All these essentials that you are basically ranting about that need these higher speeds ....

Ofcom's European Broadband Scorecard, published today, [that was 12 March 2014], shows that the UK leads the EU�s five biggest economies on most measures of coverage, take-up, usage and choice for both mobile and fixed broadband, and performs well on price.

The report finds that the availability of superfast broadband has increased in the UK from around 60% at the end of 2011 to 73%. This has taken the country from third to first for coverage among the 'EU5' (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

Take-up of superfast broadband, which is capable of providing speeds equal to or greater than 30Mbit/s, had reached nine in every 100 people in the UK at the start of last year.

Which if my arithmetic is correct means 73 people per hundred could get over 30Mbps, but only 9 per hundred had signed up to it.

Maybe it isn't so essential to the other 64 per hundred that could have done.

Edit - OfCom report.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 23-Dec-14 23:21:30)

Ross - each cab is clearly annotied during its decisioning process as to why included / excluded -- now you migh have a consiparathy theory -- but i can assume you there is a audit track of each cab and why included / excluded up to end of commerical programme wther you like it or not

Edited by deleted (Tue 23-Dec-14 23:26:21)

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

Ross - each cab is clearly annotied during its decisioning process as to why included / excluded -- now you migh have a consiparathy theory -- but i can assume you there is a audit track of each cab and why included / excluded up to end of commerical programme wther you like it or not

EO lines are not connected to a cab. However where do we attain this information you speak of?

Andrew it was Digital Scotland who stated that satelite was not an option, not me. As we all know 3mb vrs Satelite has many pro's and cons, mostly cons.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

I was entertained by a poster yesterday, and wondered, given where it was, whether the Government were trying to be ironic or insulting. I visited the quoted website and here is a quote directly from the Government's own web site for superfast broadband "Focus is now on the �final 5%� � those areas in the most remote and hardest to reach places in the UK that are not covered by existing plans" (my emphasis). Given that there are no plans at all for thousands of homes (including those in the building the poster was attached to) within earshot of Big Ben (even in sight of it from the fourth floor upwards), this can only be an outright lie.

I have a letter from BT (who had to be contacted on three separate occasions before they would respond to my MP - Andrew Rosindell) stating that they will not be looking at my area until "...at least 2017 and even then my not meet commercial model..." . I live in Romford (The London Borough of Havering).

The lack of coverage in London and Greater London is very real, and does not look like it will be changing. Ask anyone who lives in a flat and they will tell you that they are stuck with appalling ADSL of 1-3Mbs.