Virgin Media (Cable) - Staying Urban

I noticed this in the TBB coverage maps.

Looks like VM are concerned only with reaching the 80% of 'easy to supply' users. Hence why BT is rolling out ADSL2+ / FTTx to these areas quicker than rural areas imo. I checked with VM in my area and they basically offer BT's) broadband to me for more cost. Ironically, they offer the 50Meg fibre to my old house about 0.25 miles away.

It seems that both BT's and VM's rollout strategies seem to be confusing to 'us punters'. Some people can get high-speed, while others close by get bog-standard (not even ADSL2+) BB. It's interesting that living in an area which was built in 2006/7 and finished in 2008, there's nothing better than bog-standard BB. Forward thinking on the part of the telco's doesn't seem to be be their forte. That is to say, they don't see the value for the punter. Only the price, and that can be covered by the punter later anyway.

Who fancies starting up a third option?

Nothing new other than we are showing the coverage for VM
The fact that the 50% of households in UK that VM service with cable is mainly urban is no surprise.

VM National product is where possible running on the C&W LLU platform, rather than WBC or IPStream

"Nothing new."

That's part of the point of my post.

Both of the UK's main BB players are not interested in 100% UK BB coverage by 2015, especially when one considers this article.

Broadband speeds across the UK were revealed today to be on average far slower than advertised, with the nation's average download rate barely half of the average available maximum.

The research, conducted by speed optimisation firm Pando Networks, found that the average UK download speed was just 481KBps. [3848kbp/s - camie]

...but the worst performer of all was BT, with speeds of just 399KBps [3192kbp/s - camie], and a lamentable completion rate of 77 per cent.

The worst broadband speeds in the country were found in Stanford-on-Avon in Northamptonshire, with an average of just 130KBps [1040kbp/s - camie].

A recent study by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom found that the average maximum speed of UK broadband connections was 7.5Mbps; the above shows that the reality is just over half of that, at 3.85Mbps.

It increasingly looks like the targets of 100% coverage at 2Meg are not going to be reached, and if they are, it will be just 2Meg. 4Meg should be the target. Back when this 100% coverage plan was mooted, the web content was a fifth of what it is now. There's no way that 2Meg will be sufficient for whatever 2015 holds for us (assuming it happens on time).


13th Nov. 2003 - UK govt calls for 100% broadband coverage by 2005

"That is why today I am calling on them to work even more closely with us, to identify the challenges ahead so that between us we can take the next big stride in achieving a common goal - 100 per cent broadband availability by the end of 2005."

22nd Apr. 2009 - Budget: Plans for complete broadband coverage in UK

Chancellor Alistair Darling today outlined plans to use Government money to help achieve complete broadband internet coverage for the whole of the UK.

The Digital Britain review, led by communications minister Lord Carter, published an interim report in January which called for every home in the UK to have access to 2 megabit-per-second broadband - fast enough to watch video online - by 2012.

15th Jul. 2010 - Broadband target put back to 2015

Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, said that it was not practical to meet the previous government's target of universal broadband coverage by 2012 � a commitment he had previously dismissed as "paltry". Instead, Hunt said it would take until 2015 before every home in Britain had at least a 2Mbps (megabits per second) connection.

So where are we now? The Ofcom publication 6th August 2011 shows that 14% of UK connection are less than 2.2 Meg sync on average (I noticed my region is 14% too, so an average place it seems).

You posted "Best in Europe by 2015 is the goal" in TBB's article comments here, while this article echos that fact (both articles in Autumn 2010):

The Government has said that Britain will have the best broadband network in Europe by 2015.

However, it also mentions the following:

It found that countries such as Latvia, Bulgaria and Portugal are already achieving the necessary 11mbps download and 5mps upload speeds.

I just feel that the UK will not be 100% 2Meg by 2015, nor will it be the best in Europe. It might have 2/3 high-speed access by then, so it's averages will look good on the leages tables, but the 1/3 of other users will be forgotten in the scramble and those who do get 2Meg will find the web is demanding 4Meg as a minimum for interactivity.

Doom and gloom, I know, but the history of the targets and deliveries speak for themselves. If things weren't that bad, the 'powers that be' would be shouting the good news from the rooftops. Given that we are now looking at a target that is ten years behind the original target, and that none of the previous targets have been met, what else can we expect?

The biggest impediment to getting HS Broadband rolled out to 90% of the UK is the monopoly BT has in the local loop (excluding cabled areas)

You will find that a substantial amount of BT's FTTC rollout is in cabled areas where they have competition. The non-cabled areas are left to last as they don�t need to worry as they have no competition.

To sped roll out up and to keep BT on its does there has to be competition in the local loop.

This could be by means of the Fujitsu lead Open Network Consortium or by making the Local loop independent of BT. This could be by making it a separate BT company. A key part being it would not be able to provide service to end users.

Either of the above would get more competition. There is plenty of competition at the ISP level but they all have to use the BT local loop and that is where the problem lies

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The biggest impediment to getting HS Broadband rolled out to 90% of the UK is the monopoly BT has in the local loop (excluding cabled areas)

So why is cable not available in these areas?

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

You will find that a substantial amount of BT's FTTC rollout is in cabled areas where they have competition. The non-cabled areas are left to last as they don�t need to worry as they have no competition.

Is it possible that BT have the same reasons for not deploying to these areas as VM?

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

or by making the Local loop independent of BT. This could be by making it a separate BT company. A key part being it would not be able to provide service to end users.

Like Openreach?

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The biggest impediment to getting HS Broadband rolled out to 90% of the UK is the monopoly BT has in the local loop (excluding cabled areas)

Is it the biggest impediment? I'd say the biggest is that people don't want to pay the true cost for high speed broadband and a lot of people don't even need it, the majority still use it for the basics, browsing and email.

BT has a monopoly on the local loop, well as it owns it... sure they do. At least there are wholesale options available unlike its biggest rival covering 50% of the country (Virgin Cable)

Everyone is so quick to blame BT for all their woes, there are other telco's in the country people need to start complaining to them instead of constantly moaning that BT aren't giving up their paid for assets for nothing so smaller ISP's can get an easy ride without having to invest themselves.

2015 2Meg 100% - already done, just need to subsidise access to KA band services. Fortunately most appear to be trying something different.

Well aware of the speed standing, but as I've said in public and private the way the scoring for evaluating best in Europe means the 2015 target is a done deal. Inclusion of retail competition in the scoring means UK will win.

What previous targets has the government missed with regards to broadband? The 2012 USC was moved, not missed and could still be hit if they wanted.

BT/VM are only interested in 100% where the cost between average connections and these harder to reach areas can be subsidised, and they have said as much to the committees in the last year or two.

BTW 11Mbps is not the target superfast for BDUK is >24Mbps i.e. explicitly excludes ADSL2+

In reply to a post by panda:

So why is cable not available in these areas?

VM is a public company and the board are answerable to the company shareholders. They have no obligation to provide a service anywhere at all so they only do so where their research has shown they can get a return on investment. The research must have been over optimistic in the past as VM are carrying debts of ~ £6Bn. Don't expect a big resurgence in their enthusiasm to dig up new streets and fit ducting any time soon as they simply can't afford the investment.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

. . . by making the Local loop independent of BT. This could be by making it a separate BT company. A key part being it would not be able to provide service to end users.

Upgrading or replacing the local loop is always going to be a question of commercial investment or public subsidy (which the government has chosen to address locally through BDUK). EDIT: Cable was the great white hope of the 1990s but had to be wholly privately financed so it stalled when the investment dried up. The UK's unique combination of regulatory induced competition and selective price controls (which perhaps have benefited BT's market share) introduce uncertainty which is the bugbear of investment.

There seems to me to be a separate issue of lines not achieving they speeds they should. Rather than OR not dealing with the consumer, perhaps it should. If my (competitive supplier) gas or electricity supply goes down I talk direct to the distribution company that owns the infrastructure not the supplier, or Transco for gas. The market works; in those cases where the infrastructure owner doesn't deal with the consumer: rail and telecomms, it doesn't seem to. A coincidence? Any comments? Virgin media of course is a marriage of ISP and infrastructure owner, as is now being considered for rail!

I note incidentally that BT might in part be addressing this issue with Wholesale FTTC where BT provide and maintain the modem, meaning presumably that they can exercise control over the whole of the connection between exchange, cabinet DSLAM and CP modem, and hopefully better identify and deal with service issues/faults than with the split responsibility tripartite structure of ADSL.

Edited by deleted (Thu 01-Sep-11 19:32:34)

Well in my city of 200k+

theres no vm cable only LLU and 21CN

i ask virgin the reason for this and they said that it would be to expensive =/

now im city has a cable network that has covrage in most of the city but the company went bankrupt

which is a shame i thought VM could/would of bought that up but its probably nowhere near as simple as that no doubt.

funny enough though allot of shops here sell cable routers ......o_0

Though if VM did ever come here in the near future i could easily see myself going for the 100MB package.

Edited by epyon (Thu 01-Sep-11 17:21:49)

what makes you think BT are prioritising urban areas for FTTC?

VM are doing the sensible thing and going for heaviest populated areas, at least their strategy makes sense. I am still trying to figure out BT's.

in my county most exchanges picked have no cable competition.

I said FTTx to be precise.

http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/broadband/index.html

Pick a few regions, including urban ones and see the super-fast availability percentages. 80%+ in urban areas, and 0% to 50% in predominantly rural regions (but be sure to know that there are cities in some of them).

Fife for example has a 45% availability, but 15% of the whole (or a third of the availability) will be within the city of Dunfermline.

that ofcom map is pretty much VM only as it doesnt include FTTx on the next gen coverage data.

Where do you live?

I know in Chester and Shrewsbury the council rejected the planning permission from NTL / Telewest because they did not want the cobbled streets disrupted.

Virgin are not really even increasing their coverage it is neally all upgrading of their existing network.

They did issue a report that they were going to start infilling areas in their existing coverage ares but that does not appear to be happing as plenty of people who have Virging almost going past their door have applied and Virgin have said no.

The only realy new cable going in is with new estates where the builders put it in.

Aberdeen =/

I had a thought it might be. I remember when Aberdeen Cable went out of business. Strange that no one (that I know of) has bought into the network.

It's interesting that living in an area which was built in 2006/7 and finished in 2008, there's nothing better than bog-standard BB.

Large developments tend to be on the outside of existing settlements and hence further away from existing infrastructure. If the developer, who makes tens of £thousands per home, doesn't provide anything then you're left at the mercy of companies that can only look to making a few quid per month per home. The result is inevitable.

So the Telcos have no input in new estate cabling?

Didn't know that.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

So the Telcos have no input in new estate cabling?

I think the developer has to involve the telco at build time.

I have a friend living on the south coast, in a relatively recent estate (early 2000's). Every drive/entry way has a coax cable tacked to the wall. It was supposed to be for cable. The developer installed it. But never talked to VM to get it connected to anything!!

They get 2meg on BT ADSL, and my mate moved to Sky LLU, and gets 4meg. They're crying out for FTTC :-/