There will be an average amount per home but some will be cheap and some will be less cheap. It is not an amount for a home and if It is more than that then it won't be done. Hopefully they will hit some cabs will they will get 100's of people connected relatively cheaply but there may be another cab with 5 people that will cost a significant amount.

Really it is political.

I have seen fibre cabinets erected before the houses have been built, although houses dont take long to buil now. Probably possible to build a house quicker than openreach can change a plug.

I have 3 cabinets a stones throw from my home (One I had never noticed before as it was installed inside a hedge, pretty clever really). Surely to rectify the cluster of EO lines cash could have been saved in the long term by fitting either a larger cabinet or 2 cabinets side by side then re routing the line on the poles to the cabinet. Not a great deal of work involved considering. Now if they aim to fix the EO lines it will be from square one.

So looks like their planning involves a 3 year old some crayons and a map.

As already said some homes will be cheaper than others, a lot of homes wouldnt even require BDUK cash. So really what are they doing with this cash? How much of this cash is wasted on providing fibre to ghost industrial estates and new housing estates mid build? Surely tax payers should get some kind of breakdown.

Time to talk to your local elected officials and make them aware of the desire for more public information on the roll-out.

NOTE: Some counties have EU funding that is specifically reserved for businesses and thus the ghost industrial estates are a key part of regeneration to encourage new firms and new jobs to an area.

At the end of the day, if others can be serviced for less than you, why should YOU get more spent on you? Yes it is very frustrating, but that is what it boils down to.

The planning may look haphazard but from outside you can see the patterns and value for money and getting the most with some form of improvement are key decision drivers.

Is it fair? Probably not, but to be fair then a 100% with access to superfast would have been the original goal of a project.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Time to talk to your local elected officials and make them aware of the desire for more public information on the roll-out.

NOTE: Some counties have EU funding that is specifically reserved for businesses and thus the ghost industrial estates are a key part of regeneration to encourage new firms and new jobs to an area.

At the end of the day, if others can be serviced for less than you, why should YOU get more spent on you? Yes it is very frustrating, but that is what it boils down to.

The planning may look haphazard but from outside you can see the patterns and value for money and getting the most with some form of improvement are key decision drivers.

Is it fair? Probably not, but to be fair then a 100% with access to superfast would have been the original goal of a project.

Case and point why should public funds be used to increase EO lines which are already over 8mb speeds and leave the long EO lines which are between 1mb and 3mb in the dark.

It is not fair, never will be fair. I dont think anyone with half a brain expected it to be fair. I have already pushed my local MP over this. Her response was to email openreach. Yup you guessed it another donkey from Labour.

Increasing access to superfast only further decreases those with slow speeds further into broadband poverty. The fact the local MP hasnt got a clue about any of it speaks volumes.

So why should people like me get more spent on them, well simple we had the worse speeds to start off with due to the network structure so surely making everyone have access to decent speeds. Instead all they done was back fund commercial roll out under the "guise" of providing superfast broadband to all. Which is a great thing for those who benefitted, not so good to those who have seen reductions on house values and sat on a side wall like the kid who didnt get picked to play football.

No one wants to speak about this, its like a dirty little secret. Fortunately I managed to get a speed increase by continiously badgering openreach to do their job properly. It took over 4 years and about 15 engineer visists but I managed to get a speed capable of streaming and playing games online. I feel sorry for those who havent got the speeds to at least do the simplest of tasks.

The commercial roll-outs stopped at around 66% coverage, and the reports back in 2008/2009 indicated that the cost of delivering faster speeds to the final per cent was going to be a lot higher, so Government raided the store cupboard and found £530m.

Someone suggested this might with funding from councils and commercial partners mean 90% can get superfast speeds. So no surprise that councils are spending in a way that ensures they can hit the targets, and the good ones are hoping that if money left over they can go further. Others are just doing enough to avoid a rebellion.

Given the target is superfast, then anyone on ADSL2+ speeds is in scope. If the target was 90% with 8 Mbps or faster then a different course would have played out.

Remember the very high profile Public Accounts Committee grilling, more worried about value for money and keeping teams busy scrutinising piles of invoices than the actual delivery.

Even if BT had not won a contract, the result would have been very similar, with some areas getting help and others not. It might have been different groups as not building out from an existing network, but a totally new venture.

All you can do is ensure that the projects know about you and your area and attempt to get included in the current or extension projects, or encourage a commercial competitor to make money from the area or do the DIY approach.

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

I have read somewhere that BDUK monies is equaly to £500 per home. (perhaps thats BS so please correct me if i read that wrong)

Not close.

I guess it differs county-by-county, but it very much depends on the target coverage set by the county, governed by how much extra the county chose to add for itself. As the targets increase, the marginal cost per property increases - somewhat exponentially.

For example, Surrey got £1.3m from central funds, but added £20m of their own to target a high percentage - over 99% of properties. That's around 80,000 properties at a high average of £266 per property.

North Yorkshire got £17.8m from central government, and added £8.6m from the EU, but added nothing itself. The target there is around 90% of properties, and £5m of the budget is being left for the USC portion. This budget for phase 1 of the NGA work will reach 150,000 properties, so amounts to a lower figure of £142 per property.

The lower average figure for North Yorkshire is because the project (with a target of 90%) isn't yet targeting the *really* expensive properties...

North Yorkshire got some additional funds for a second phase of work (although the money still comes from the phase 1 pot centrally). This amounts to £8m from central government, county and the EU. An additional £2m gets released from the previous USC budget to augment the total spend on NGA.

This £10m buys 11,000 properties at superfast speeds (a staggering £900 per property), but actually connects 17,700 properties to NGA cabinets (£564 per property).

As you can see... the amount per property starts to rise dramatically once the targets go beyond 90%.

There is a 'gotcha' to these figures, as the first number could be improved by use of FTTRN, if the trials proceed successfully. If they do, then the former number increases to 16,000 properties (so would be £625 per property); the second number does not increase.

This is also visible when you look at the central funding of the two BDUK phases announced so far:

The first phase (targetting 90%) will improve speeds for roughly 20% of the country. £500m aimed at about 5.2 million properties; £96 per property (the centrally-funded portion only).

The second phase (targetting 95%) will improve speeds for roughly 5% of the country.
£250m aimed at about 1.3 million properties; £192 per property (again, the central portion only).

surely there is some form of regulator making sure the money is being used fairly and to improve services for the worst effected

No. The money is definitely not being targetted at the worst affected. Using value-for-money criteria, it is being used to target the ones who can be upgraded for the lowest capital outlay - which ensures that the (finite) pot of money brings superfast speeds to the highest number of properties.

These properties aren't likely to be the worst affected.

Even the next phase of money doesn't target the worst affected ... just the next 5% - leaving the final 5% still waiting.

WWWombat, a very informitive and interesting post thanks very much for the info.

"I just get angered by the whole "we aim to bring superfast broadband to everyone" stuff like that is just utter drivell. I hate liars.

I accept the fact for those on long EO lines chances are they will only see superfast by moving property, self funding or when "superfast" is superseeded by another technology.

For me I happen to think I am in quite a large cluster of EO lines, the chance was there for them to ammend that and they did nada. Openreach dont give a stuff, as mentioned before if it was anyone other than openreach they wouldnt care either (although at least standards would be better).

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Openreach dont give a stuff, as mentioned before if it was anyone other than openreach they wouldnt care either (although at least standards would be better).

As far as I am aware OpenReach are just a contractor who do work for whoever is prepared to pay for their services.

Do your numbers include the money that BT put in for each of the projects? That can also vary wildly between counties so in some they will be providing a lot more per household than others.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Openreach dont give a stuff, as mentioned before if it was anyone other than openreach they wouldnt care either (although at least standards would be better).

As far as I am aware OpenReach are just a contractor who do work for whoever is prepared to pay for their services.

Indeed, unfortunately for me I have had a series of bad experiances with them. Luckily my ISP was picking up the tab, it took a guy on his first job as an Internet Engineer to solve the issues. He was engineer number 15 i believe. So I do not hold them in very high regard. Having no competition does that to a company though.