Openreach Superfast takeup

BT is rolling out fibre optic broadband across the UK at a steady pace, but only 15% of fibre-ready premises have signed up for the superfast internet service.

Linky.

Edit - I see Andrew has a News article.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 31-Jul-14 14:49:44)

Or just on front page of http://www.thinkbroadband.com

Credited you and added a link in my edit, 8 seconds before your post hit the thread .

I had a giggle at the article, they come up with figures but I dont trust any of it.

My entire postcode area is exchange only, not a chance in hell of ever getting any decent broadband let alone fibre. Any checker tells you that fibre is not available including BT's. Two days ago I get a stupid letter from BT telling me Fibre is now available for me and included in the correspondence was a ticket "ala charlie and the chocolate factory golden " So with that level of incompitence I am not surprised there isn't a rush to take up the fibre services.

Also couple that in with the fact openreach only deem densly populated areas as commercialy viable (for upgrades, ie fitting cabinets and netwrok re management)with no knowlege of the financial demographs of these areas. So the poorest areas are commercialy viable but those in the outer reaches arent. I know that not all densely populated areas are poor but perhaps more care as to how they reach that decision.

BT + Openreach = Dumb and Dumber

I work closely with a group of 10 people, 3 of us would jump at fibre if available, 2 on EO lines, one lives in the sticks. The rest have no interest at all but it is available.

All they care about is the target figures and without tackling the issue of EO lines and the outer reaches of towns etc these "targets" will never be met. Surely that obsticle should have been dealt with first or as a minimum come up with a soloution. The stupidity of these companies is without a doubt the block.

Simple economics if selling a product is to first check and see if consumers want it , not flood areas with little interest.

Simple economics if selling a product is to first check and see if consumers want it

But if that were the case, we'd all still be using dial-up.

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Also couple that in with the fact openreach only deem densly populated areas as commercialy viable (for upgrades, ie fitting cabinets and netwrok re management)with no knowlege of the financial demographs of these areas. So the poorest areas are commercialy viable but those in the outer reaches arent.

Why should a rich area be any more viable than a poor one? Last I heard BT pricing is the same for rich and poor. That being the case why would you expect a cabinet serving a dozen properties with relatively long copper runs to be more viable than a cabinet serving a couple of hundred properties most of which have less than 500 metres of copper?

FTTC costs more than a plain ADSL connection. Therefore one might conclude that take up will be higher in a more affluent area. I remember when ADSL first came out and BT enabled a bunch of exchanges that covered poorer areas, the house holds of which many I would doubt even owned a computer, yet alone where prepared to pay for a broadband connection. BT then announced that there was poor take up, well colour me surprised...

The basics are looking at just the number of premises connected to an exchange and/or cabinet as a method of determining whether upgrading it is commercially viable is a severely flawed methodology. You need to take into account the demographics of the area as well the existing internet connectivity. So a more affluent area which is suffering slow speeds is likely to have a higher uptake than a poorer area with good speeds, even though the density on the cabinets is lower.

Ever checked out how many "poor" families have Sky TV?

It can be argued that those at the poorer end of the spectrum are more likely to prioritise home entertainment services as they cannot afford to go to cinema, theatre, opera, races, etc,etc that the wealthier can.

Just because it is a wealthy area does not mean it will have lots of sign up for faster Internet - the opposite could equally be the case.

Ah yes, but there is one extra factor you also need to take account of.
rich areas comprising affluent residents have better things to do with their lives than spend them downloading cats on youtube and watching films.
They go out for their entertainment.
Yes they are heavy internet users - for things like online banking/stockbroking etc but NOT for those things that require a huge amount of speed such as multiple video streaming.
They are in many cases simply not interested in faster broadband

I know one place where on 'one side' so to speak to give it an imaginary dividing line there is both Virgin and BT's FTTC - this is surburbia.
On the other side are the residences of the rich so to speak where there is neither virgin nor is there any FTTC under the commercial or BDUK program due.
These companies are not stupid they know where the demand is - and moreover where it is not!

(Edit Ian72 got the same comment in first!)

Edited by deleted (Thu 31-Jul-14 16:51:15)

In reply to a post by zom22:

I know one place where on 'one side' so to speak to give it an imaginary dividing line there is both Virgin and BT's FTTC - this is surburbia.

Most, if not all, of Hazel Grove where I live.