Boris Johnson’s faster broadband promise is being broken

A report in The Guardian about a report by the Public Accounts Committee.

I'll post about what bears do in the woods later.

Just in case The Guardian is too leftie for you, I give you the Daily Mail report.

There is also an article in the Telegraph. It mentions that MPs think that there are about 150,000 homes where it is not financially viable for private companies to connect them.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

There is also an article in the Telegraph. It mentions that MPs think that there are about 150,000 homes where it is not financially viable for private companies to connect them.

As I understand it, it's actually 15-20% of the UK (i.e. about 5 or 6 million properties) where it's considered not financially viable for private companies to connect them without government subsidy. That's where DCMS is supposed to be focussed.

Of those, there are about 150,000 homes where apparently it's not financially viable to connect them *at all*.

It's unclear if those 150,000 homes already have copper connections. If they do, it was achievable to connect them in the past, so why not now? I expect it could be done for a fraction of the cost of HS2.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's unclear if those 150,000 homes already have copper connections. If they do, it was achievable to connect them in the past, so why not now?

I guess because most of them will have been connected by the Post Office in ye olden days when it was owned by the people and worked for the people rather than shareholders.

So what is the answer? maybe a UK wide broadband tax to pay for the costs of 100% coverage of full fibre broadband even to the most rural properties/businesses and to pay for the BBC going forward.

In reply to a post by dect:

So what is the answer? maybe a UK wide broadband tax to pay for the costs of 100% coverage of full fibre broadband even to the most rural properties/businesses and to pay for the BBC going forward.

If that happens everyone will go wireless, and major 4G and 5G capacity issues will arise. It's already a struggle where I live to get decent signal, and when there's signal speeds are slow as they use low band 4G

4G and 5G would almost certainly be considered broadband in this context and taxed just the same as fixed line.

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

If that happens everyone will go wireless

Not convinced people would.

I would not consider it broadband if its a mobile phone plan, a mobile phone is not a router if you get my gist.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

If that happens everyone will go wireless

Not convinced people would.

I guess it depends on the user, I already know a few people that live in a street near me that use 4G since they live opposite a O2 flagpole and a standard mast site. They can't get decent fixed line, all slower than 4G and unusable in practice.

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

I guess it depends on the user, I already know a few people that live in a street near me that use 4G since they live opposite a O2 flagpole and a standard mast site. They can't get decent fixed line, all slower than 4G and unusable in practice.

If a household has poor fixed broadband then 4G/5G (where available) is an alternative but I am not convinced the majority of the general public would switch to 4G/5G when full fibre is available, although some would and they may post here shortly to say that

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

If that happens everyone will go wireless

Not convinced people would.

I also just had another thought, if a tax was being imposed I would expect OFcom to force all providers to lower the prices of gigabit packages inline with the rest of europe, I mean France is €15 a month for 500Mbps up and down, €22 for gigabit. I get it's different regulation, but the price for FTTP/C is the same as of ADSL with Orange, in my view that says a lot.

I get OR have stopsale in place for migration to fibre products but the French approach is give considerably faster speeds with a value price which is marketed in a localised town by town approach so Orange have a different division for small areas, e.g. Nordnet for the north

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

I also just had another thought, if a tax was being imposed I would expect OFcom to force all providers to lower the prices of gigabit packages inline with the rest of europe, I mean France is €15 a month for 500Mbps up and down, €22 for gigabit. I get it's different regulation, but the price for FTTP/C is the same as of ADSL with Orange, in my view that says a lot.

I get OR have stopsale in place for migration to fibre products but the French approach is give considerably faster speeds with a value price which is marketed in a localised town by town approach so Orange have a different division for small areas, e.g. Nordnet for the north

I am not sure that the price of broadband in any other country has a bearing on the costs here in the UK, if you're going to give the example of France then why not use India as a comparison as it likely to be even cheaper there.

In reply to a post by dect:

I am not sure that the price of broadband in any other country has a bearing on the costs here in the UK, if you're going to give the example of France then why not use India as a comparison as it likely to be even cheaper there.

True! Indian broadband is around a quarter of the price of the UK, like for like. (Around 10 USD vs 40 USD here). BUT, how much is a dollar worth in India vs the UK? I wonder if France is better example as wages and prices in general are more closely aligned with the UK.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

True! Indian broadband is around a quarter of the price of the UK, like for like. (Around 10 USD vs 40 USD here). BUT, how much is a dollar worth in India vs the UK? I wonder if France is better example as wages and prices in general are more closely aligned with the UK.

Only one outcome when comparing costs like this is a rabbit hole where no good comes from it

In reply to a post by dect:

So what is the answer? maybe a UK wide broadband tax to pay for the costs of 100% coverage of full fibre broadband even to the most rural properties/businesses and to pay for the BBC going forward.

We're already paying tax to pay for the rollout. The government is paying the likes of BT to build the infrastructure. (Where that's not via direct payment remember there are other subsidies and tax exemptions for all of the build.) So, yes, a general rather than specific tax may be an answer. I'm trying to say funded through general taxation rather than have another tax.

The problem is we're giving cash to BT et al because they're saying it 'uneconomic' to build the network. But we haven't seen the numbers...

In reply to a post by dect:

I am not sure that the price of broadband in any other country has a bearing on the costs here in the UK, if you're going to give the example of France then why not use India as a comparison as it likely to be even cheaper there.

What I was just trying to say is that, gigabit in the UK is very overpriced to be honest When i see gigabit at 60 a month which isn't a leased line compared to France more or less £35 less than us it's a massive divide. I used france as an example since the currencies can be compared and for small amounts like this its only a couple of pounds either way/

Same goes with leased lines, comparing virgin media and Orange gigabit is basically half the price. UK Price 500
French 250-300 depends on location though

In reply to a post by dect:

Only one outcome when comparing costs like this is a rabbit hole where no good comes from it

According to the Big Mac Index: India $2.55, UK $4.75.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

We're already paying tax to pay for the rollout. The government is paying the likes of BT to build the infrastructure. (Where that's not via direct payment remember there are other subsidies and tax exemptions for all of the build.) So, yes, a general rather than specific tax may be an answer. I'm trying to say funded through general taxation rather than have another tax.

The problem is we're giving cash to BT et al because they're saying it 'uneconomic' to build the network. But we haven't seen the numbers...

I would love to see the numbers myself, I wonder what the profit margin is.

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

I would love to see the numbers myself, I wonder what the profit margin is.

Given the number of altnet entries to the market and the amount of serious money behind them: very large.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

The problem is we're giving cash to BT et al because they're saying it 'uneconomic' to build the network. But we haven't seen the numbers...

Even the BDUK contracts have a cost cap for each build within the contract as it would be madness not too, if we are saying that those contracts should be limitless for each build and if it costs £1 million for one property in the middle of nowhere then................

Edited by deleted (Wed 19-Jan-22 16:15:18)

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

I would love to see the numbers myself, I wonder what the profit margin is.

Given the number of altnet entries to the market and the amount of serious money behind them: very large.

Virgin Media probably have one of the largest, I mean an £80 a month package for something others could probably do for half the price and probably be reliable.
I'm on 19 a month with them M100 talk weekend calls and fully unlimited sim so not much out of me (probably running at a loss in my case)

In reply to a post by dect:

if we are saying that those contracts should be limitless for each build and if it costs 1 million for one property in the middle of nowhere then................

Yes, but who's saying it cost a million £ to connect a single property? Why, it's the company who demands the subsidy and needs to keep the price high.

In reply to a post by dect:

Even the BDUK contracts have a cost cap for each build within the contract as it would be madness not too, if we are saying that those contracts should be limitless for each build and if it costs 1 million for one property in the middle of nowhere then................

The only thing i could think that they could do would be to do as much fibre as they can and deliver wirelessly for last mile, that would be more viable (to an extent (dependent on power)).

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

Yes, but who's saying it cost a million £ to connect a single property? Why, it's the company who demands the subsidy and needs to keep the price high.

Down another rabbit hole

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

if a tax was being imposed I would expect OFcom to force all providers to lower the prices of gigabit packages inline with the rest of europe

I wouldn't ever expect Ofcom to interfere in setting *retail* prices. Ofcom does fix the Openreach wholesale prices for certain basic-level products, particularly 40M FTTC and 40M FTTP. What ISPs do on top of that is their business.

I don't really see the point of a broadband tax - it's just another poll tax / TV licence where essentially every household has to pay.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

I wouldn't ever expect Ofcom to interfere in setting *retail* prices. Ofcom does fix the Openreach wholesale prices for certain basic-level products, particularly 40M FTTC and 40M FTTP. What ISPs do on top of that is their business.

I don't really see the point of a broadband tax - it's just another poll tax / TV licence where essentially every household has to pay.

I do see what you mean, I don't see the point in adding a tax if we are supposedly stopping the TV licence, they should either stop funding altogether or they keep it the way it has been, which works perfectly fine and is more manageable.
Taxing broadband is simply a stupid idea. What do I do if i want three lines do I have to claim tax back like business? Even the overlap between two ISP's would mean double paying. It feels like the person who had the idea about fibre in water came up with this, not exactly smart, all theory no good in practice

candlerb

Many of those 150,000 will have copper lines which they had to pay extra for as they exceeded the £3400 copper USO cap. BUT there are a large subset which have no fixed line as they cost more than anyone would pay. ( Could be around 70-80000.) Some of those with voice service are at the very edge of the limits for Voice over the copper,. even after the addition of amplifiers. I remember one group that lost voice (PSTN) when someone tried to put FTTC on them as the extra distance Cab to FTTC and back took the voice beyond the working limits. BT had to play around with the linecards and change the size of the copper pairs to get the voice to work again but it was always a dodgy service.

It is normally the power cost that killed getting voice extended, this shouldn't affect FTTP.

Some of the 70-80k are shooting lodges and off grid cottages that have no utility services at all and would cost £100k+ for poles, plus overhead fibre + individual splitters etc but I do not believe the £m quotes. These are really always Satellite territory although some can get Mobile signals using 700Mw spectrum.

That's fine. For properties which have been off-grid forever, I don't see any priority in getting them on-grid - not at taxpayers expense anyway.

Upgrading circuits to fibre where poles and wayleaves already exist sounds like it ought to be doable, and gives long-term benefits in terms of exchange closure and lower fault rates. If existing cables are direct buried then maybe not so much

In reply to a post by RR_The_IT_Guy:

speeds are slow as they use low band 4G

Existing services are slow as there is limited capacity at low band (see the physics). On the 800 MHz band used by all 4 networks, O2 and Vodafone have 10 MHz each and EE and Three have 5 MHz each.

In 2021, the networks bid for 700 MHz capacity, Vodafone did not. EE, Three and O2 all acquired some, so they ended up with 10 MHz each. Most of them will use this for 5G, but some (Three) may choose to use for low band 4G for now, and switch later.

Vodafone has decided to reallocate some of their 900 MHz holding (only O2 and Vodafone have 900 MHz) to 5G from legacy 3G services.

2022 is going to be interesting to see what appears where.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Existing services are slow as there is limited capacity at low band (see the physics). On the 800 MHz band used by all 4 networks, O2 and Vodafone have 10 MHz each and EE and Three have 5 MHz each.

In 2021, the networks bid for 700 MHz capacity, Vodafone did not. EE, Three and O2 all acquired some, so they ended up with 10 MHz each. Most of them will use this for 5G, but some (Three) may choose to use for low band 4G for now, and switch later.

Vodafone has decided to reallocate some of their 900 MHz holding (only O2 and Vodafone have 900 MHz) to 5G from legacy 3G services.

2022 is going to be interesting to see what appears where.

I know one thing, it would be nice to get some high band stuff round here, its a constant struggle for bandwidth, I would appreciate an extra mast site closer, like a 5G high band flagpole mast 100M along the main road next to a park and estate. That would get a lot of use

candlerb

Forget the benefits from exchange building closure, these don't really exist in the small rural exchanges, They are not worth anything unless a neighbour wants a shed.

I am not sure about lower fault rates if you have 10-15km of overhead fibre with tree damage, shotgun damage and wind damage. UG I would absolutely agree should be far lower.

Buried duct in verges would reduce the cost instead of replacing poles but takes more planning as like for like is easy planning but many rural poles are of doubtful condition (50-70 years old!)

Do you know why copper was direct buried? Our original copper drop wire is DIG, so our fibre feed has to come overhead.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

Forget the benefits from exchange building closure, these don't really exist in the small rural exchanges, They are not worth anything unless a neighbour wants a shed.

They're not worth anything, but I expect they cost a lot to run and maintain, particularly if you work this out as a per-subscriber figure.

They'll be able to rip out the PSTN equipment but will still be stuck with SOTAP.

In reply to a post by Grimers:

Do you know why copper was direct buried?

Because it was marginally cheaper at the time than laying proper ducts. There was a post-war time when every penny had to be shaved.

As an illustration, our current house was built around 1960, and it had a pitch fibre drain. I didn't even know such a material existed. It's basically papier mâché infused with bitumen, and was designed to last about 40 years; it was a cheaper alternative to clay piping.

It started blocking regularly, so we ended up having to pay to have it dug out and replaced.

It turns out that all our neighbours had clubbed together a few years ago to get all their drains relined, except the previous owner of our house had declined to join in

There was still quite a lot of DIG cables going in right up to the mid 70’s. But yeah, cost was the driving factor.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

A report in The Guardian about a report by the Public Accounts Committee.

I'll post about what bears do in the woods later.

So FTTP to you isn't making much progress, then?

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

There is also an article in the Telegraph. It mentions that MPs think that there are about 150,000 homes where it is not financially viable for private companies to connect them.

It's unclear if those 150,000 homes already have copper connections. If they do, it was achievable to connect them in the past, so why not now? I expect it could be done for a fraction of the cost of HS2.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I don't approve of HS2) when comparing costs it would have to be a very small fraction.

HS2 is projected to have significant economic benefits for the entire country over its lifetime and even if they don't all come true (and I'm sceptical that they will) it is already generating significant economic benefits to those employed directly and indirectly in its construction. I don't know what 'not financially viable' means in terms of broadband but if we assume £6k (double what telcos are expected to swallow) then that's £900m for these properties. Although providing faster broadband is supposed to offer economic benefits I'm not convinced they are all that fantastic.

Edited by Andrue (Thu 20-Jan-22 20:56:24)

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's unclear if those 150,000 homes already have copper connections. If they do, it was achievable to connect them in the past, so why not now?

I guess because most of them will have been connected by the Post Office in ye olden days when it was owned by the people and worked for the people rather than shareholders.

Ah yes. The halcyon days when telephone lines were installed within days of the request, calls went through first time sounded perfect and lasted until both parties decided they were done, calls were dirt cheap and customers could install any telephone they fancied.

But enough of how the Post Office worked in your country. Here in the UK it was slightly different..

Here in the UK the telephone network was falling apart at the seams under government oversight. The government didn't want to throw any more money at it and what a relief it was to get someone in who could sort it out. You cannot seriously be recommending that we go back to government ownership?

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Just to play devil's advocate

By all means

In reply to a post by Andrue:

HS2 is projected to have significant economic benefits for the entire country over its lifetime

I suspect the vast majority of the UK population will never travel on HS2 once. The economic benefits are mainly due to work time saved - which is irrelevant once you get good Internet connectivity onto the trains.

I was reading recently an article about how the channel tunnel completely failed its business case - in part due to the (unforeseen) arrival of budget airlines. Of course, I can't find the article now.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

and even if they don't all come true (and I'm sceptical that they will) it is already generating significant economic benefits to those employed directly and indirectly in its construction.

Of which exactly the same could be said for constructing fibre networks, or any government infrastructure spending.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Here in the UK the telephone network was falling apart at the seams under government oversight. The government didn't want to throw any more money at it and what a relief it was to get someone in who could sort it out. You cannot seriously be recommending that we go back to government ownership?

Those whom don't remember are doomed to repeat.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

Just in case The Guardian is too leftie for you, I give you the Daily Mail report.

And that before we talk about the impeding FINANCIAL collapse that they GOVT are responsible for they engineered it

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Just to play devil's advocate

By all means

In reply to a post by Andrue:

HS2 is projected to have significant economic benefits for the entire country over its lifetime

All THEY are bothered about is Saving 20 mins travel time (on a good day) This is a white elephant that only benefits those overseeing and contracted to carry out the work
I suspect the vast majority of the UK population will never travel on HS2 once. The economic benefits are mainly due to work time saved - which is irrelevant once you get good Internet connectivity onto the trains.

I was reading recently an article about how the channel tunnel completely failed its business case - in part due to the (unforeseen) arrival of budget airlines. Of course, I can't find the article now.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

and even if they don't all come true (and I'm sceptical that they will) it is already generating significant economic benefits to those employed directly and indirectly in its construction.

Of which exactly the same could be said for constructing fibre networks, or any government infrastructure spending.

Except laying fibre does not destroy farm land and nature does it?

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 21-Jan-22 03:09:21)

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

So FTTP to you isn't making much progress, then?

You should know better than to wake a sleeping bear, especial this one who has a sore head.

Nope, ain't gettin' no FTTP anytime soon. Around 95 to 98% of this Fibre First exchange has been built and lit. I guess OR can say they're bettering the target of 85% then. But the checker says "no plans" for me. My exchange is being built "between April 2021 and April 2024" - according to The Map - but most streets were complete this time last year.

I don't see my getting FTTP even by 2024. We'll be in that "too hard, too expensive" bracket who OR will say need subsidy. By which time my own personal business case for gigabit will be redundant.

Interesting fact for cynics: CityFibre are building in the city and my immediate area. Streets which - like mine - were once "no plans" for OR suddenly change to "coming soon" when CF are building. The only streets OR are not building to are streets which CF aren't either. As soon as CF (or VM02 - or both!) plan a street you can bet OR will suddenly change their mind. Funny that.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

The halcyon days when telephone lines were installed within days of the request, calls went through first time sounded perfect and lasted until both parties decided they were done, calls were dirt cheap and customers could install any telephone they fancied.

I think you just described how the internet works in the UK today.

Here in the UK the telephone network was falling apart at the seams under government oversight. The government didn't want to throw any more money at it and what a relief it was to get someone in who could sort it out. You cannot seriously be recommending that we go back to government ownership?

If you don't invest for political reasons and the service falls apart people will demand its fixed. They'll say they don't care how, just fix it. So the Conservative government privatised the phone network. And the trains, I see that's going really well. As is the water industry in England and many other utility or important services.

Underinvesting really is the most basic way of privatising an industry. Which then makes huge profits for shareholders rather than taxpayers. Look carefully at what's happing today with the NHS.