Superfast Broadband?

I may not be all that competent when it comes to BB but I am more so confused by what is claimed as superfast BB.

I live in a rural area where according the manager of the BT Chairmans Office [Business] in Glasgow, the conductors providing the telephone service are known to be unreliable, possibly dating back to the 1960s and a mixture of aluminium and copper.

In September last year our nearest cabinet was connected FTTC and I took the opportunity to make use of the facility. I am about 1600 metres by conductor route from the cabinet.

The service provided is described as superfast up to 38Mbps. In fact it is about 18 Mbps and getting slower.

When BT, the Council and the world in general claim percentage success of up to 90% superfast BB, am I included in that percentage? - even though I am not getting superfast BB.

Further, are all those people who could be but are not connected to the cabinet FTTC also included in that 90%.

In short does 90% mean all those who truly receive superfast BB, or does it include all those who in an ideal world might be able to receive superfast BB if they chose to do so?

I get 19Mbps on my FTTC line, similar to my neighbours - but I find my line/area is often described as 'Superfast'.

'Statistics' pfft

It's the number of properties that speeds of 24meg+ are available too.

When connected via FTTC, the "superfast" epiphet only applies if you actually get speeds of more than 25Mbps.

The actual speed achieved depend on the length of the line, quality of joints, material (aluminium/copper), and gauge (diameter). As "standard", the expectation is that superfast speeds reach out to around 1200m. There are around 6% of lines longer than this.
http://postimg.org/image/bp372fcnn/

The targets are indeed to reach 90% of lines which can actually reach the superfast speed threshold. And later, to 95%.

If you don't get a superfast speed from an upgrade, then you technically qualify for further subsidy in future. However, there are other qualification factors that might work against you - such as the one that specifies a " step change" in speed.

As the target rises to 95%, there will be a need for BT to cover people like you - beyond the threshold from an old upgrade - by getting deeper fibre from a secondary FTTC cabinet, or from FTTP. Both kinds of expansion have been seen.

If you goto https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?area... you will see our stats for Glasgow City and you fall into the gap between the two lines you can see when you click the history button i.e. 0.9% of Glasgow passed by a VDSL2 or cable service but not able to get superfast speeds.

The broadband provider should have given you a speed estimate at the time of signing up and before you committed to upgrading.

The UK as a whole has 92.8% able to get something like VDSL2/cable/FTTH but the figure for those superfast is lower at 88.6% to 89.3% depending on whether you call superfast something over 24 Mbps or over 30 Mbps

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

When connected via FTTC, the "superfast" epiphet only applies if you actually get speeds of more than 25Mbps.

BT Openreach have started to change that on there Where and when page.
[FTTC]
"Great news, you can order a fibre service. Please get in touch with your service provider."
The above was for a 76Mbps downstream speeds.

[FTTP]
"Great news, you can get Superfast fibre directly to your home. Please get in touch with your service provider for more details."

However the Where and when page is still more designed for FTTC at the moment, so hopefully this will change also.

Paul

Also do tge figures defereniate between cabs that can achieve superfast speeds vs capacity?

For example my cab is enabled and i could get 50Mbps. However due to capacity issues i cant order fibre yet. So do those stats count me in the 90% target as i can theoretically get those speeds even though there isnt room in the cab for my line?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The UK as a whole has 92.8% able to get something like VDSL2/cable/FTTH but the figure for those superfast is lower at 88.6% to 89.3% depending on whether you call superfast something over 24 Mbps or over 30 Mbps

We've had similar conversations in the past...

I'm still wary about those stats. Looking at myself and my neighbours none of us achieve 30+ (we are all around 19-22) but the 'TBB labs' page says: "Fibre (FTTC) is possibly available and speeds will likely be above 30 Mbps."

Looking on another exchange where I know they get similar speeds the labs page says the same. So surely talk of .6 and .3 of a % isn't accurate and the stats can't be taken serously?

And I believe I've asked for details of the location so that I can manually review it before

There are some locations where the model does not work well, but by and large this is not the case. Saying an exchange is not enough, need to know a postcode to look at.

If people feed back into the model then it will become better.

Yes in that case you would count, since otherwise the figures would be going up and down all the time.

Onus and cost of adding more capacity is purely down to Openreach.

I apologise if this has been discussed previously, however, I am still very skeptical about statistics telling us how wonderful the BB service is.

To be clear, I am not complaining about the BB service I currently receive, which is entirely adequate for my personal needs.

My point is that in this locality, where some people have difficulty in maintaining a telephone service let alone any type of BB, it does appear that the claim is being made that just because the cabinet has been connected to the exchange with fibre, everybody connected to that cabinet, whether FTTC or not, is rated as superfast, regardless of the true situation.

The area is sparsely populated and there does not appear to be any congestion at the cabinet. Those who wish to be connected FTTC can do so but that does not remove the fact that the conductors leaving the cabinet to the homes are very old and very substandard.

The message in Herefordshire does appear to be that what you have now is what you will have in the future! Yet we are being given statistics suggesting satisfaction by all.

Are we being conned by the political/commercial organisation?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

And I believe I've asked for details of the location so that I can manually review it before

There are some locations where the model does not work well, but by and large this is not the case. Saying an exchange is not enough, need to know a postcode to look at.

If people feed back into the model then it will become better.

I did TBB thread here: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/4439980-anoth...

But what I'm saying is that after checking all the FTTC lines I have contact with (not just my neighbours) the real life connection speeds don't reflect the stats. Most of the lines I see are rural which may explain that - but it still makes me think the stats on 'superfast' whether it be 24+ or 30+ are questionable...

In reply to a post by GKLeyshill:

I apologise if this has been discussed previously, however, I am still very skeptical about statistics telling us how wonderful the BB service is.

As you're talking of stats, where are your stats in support of this claim?

In reply to a post by GKLeyshill:

The service provided is described as superfast up to 38Mbps. In fact it is about 18 Mbps and getting slower.

I think we may becoming lost in semantics.

The statistics I refer to are those claiming regional availability for superfast BB, not individual router stats.

Herefordshire is a different kettle of fish compared to Glasgow, and is well behind the national curve

https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?area...
Only 61.4% Superfast Coverage

So who if anyone is saying Herefordshire is at the 90% mark? Sparsely populated areas are much more obvious in our stats where 8.6% are in theory on a VDSL2 cabinet and not getting a superfast option.

Happy to brief whoever in power is claiming satisfaction for all, just the same as happy to brief those using very old data when the picture has changed in an area.

One reason the council may being upbeat is because back in 2012 no one had a superfast option, so things are improving but as with any infrastructure roll-out it takes time.

In reply to a post by GKLeyshill:

I think we may becoming lost in semantics.

The statistics I refer to are those claiming regional availability for superfast BB, not individual router stats.

But you claim certain speeds for your line, yet you provide no proof. The reason for your speeds may be something you can fix.

And impossible to find a PM from 5 months ago, need the postcode again, May not have looked back then.

The comments about 30 dropping to 20 suggest you are in that fuzzy borderline, and if this looks to be a uniform issue then can misplace the cabinet to compensate, i.e. as done for one or two others where people have had Al line issues.

With 95,000 cabinets and 1.7 million postcodes it is a big data set to play.

If the poster can use https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?tab=3 they will get the county level and constituency level results and our estimate for their postcode. If vastly different to their experience on the postcode level them Private Message the postcode.

it depends if you were covered by the commercial programme or the BDUk programme as there was n o >24 m/bps in the commercial programme

The majority of the FTTC Cabinets are under-utilised, if you accept the OR figure of about 30% actual upgrades, no matter the actual speed achieved.

Given the 90% of premises within the total of Broadband areas, that shows that only 27% have achieved an actual upgrade, whether the speed is less or more than 24 Mbps.

"My" local FTTC has a capacity of 288 lines; and has been available since March 2014, say 23 months.

About 2 weeks back, the 63rd upgrade was installed, out of 96 back-plane sockets fitted with the essential Filter-Links.; and possibly a 64th last week.

About 3 upgrades per month.

So it appears that about 70% of those who could upgrade, have no great interest in doing so; with ADSL being sufficient for their requirements; or Dial-up; or are not concerned to have access to the Internet.

The associated PCP appears to be "full" with PSTN lines; and using Postcode information, may have between 250 and 300 lines.

The houses on this estate were fully wired underground for PSTN when built in 1967; and judging by the lack of poles, so are all of the subsequent builds in this area.

So it appears that about 70% of those who could upgrade, have no great interest in doing so; with ADSL being sufficient for their requirements; or Dial-up; or are not concerned to have access to the Internet.

Im sure cost is the major factor. Maybe faster but unless you download or stream HD content then you probably dont need to spend the extra it costs to have fibre. Even HD can be streamed on ADSL. Alot cant warrant paying the extra for fibre a month.

But then the issue is if/when fibre comes down in cost, will more suddenly want it, resulting in more cabs requiring upgrades which cost OR money, which gets passed to the user?

Yes, I am certain that the costs of running Fibre proper to individual properties will not encourage the majority to do so.

Particularly if it has to go underground, as it probably would for the estates around me.

Even as Overhead from poles ( and getting the main feed to those presently non-existent poles) would be relatively costly.

I wonder what the effect of a cracked fibre would be?

And how far the broken ends would have to part to break the service.

-------

I have the experience of playing with glass-fibre cloth back in the mid-1940s.

It was fascinating to lay this very flexible cloth on the open fire, not burning; but solid when we retrieved it, otherwise apparently unaffected.

My father used it as the ribbon around wedding cakes, because of its lustrous appearance.

The care needed when cutting and trimming it, similar to asbestos.

Was mainly talking about FTTC, which is still more expensive than ADSL and this will discourage people. May only be £5-10 more p/m (not looked too closely at cost) but why pay that if you dont really need faster internet

Edited by bobble_bob (Tue 16-Feb-16 13:06:20)

No need to bother now. All I'm trying to say is that I'm very wary when I hear the percentages being banded around (by BT, Gov, council or even TBB) for 'superfast' broadband as in my experience the data may be flawed (i.e. The lines I see won't be the only ones in the country that are incorrect)

We do comparisons between some limited areas and speeds people are recording from the speed test, yours is interesting as started at 30 Mbps and has dropped. Why not for every postcode, because we don't have a team of 1000's to go and do this sort of checking - it is a team of me.

The general tolerance we give to the overall figures is +/- 1%. Some areas are worse than others and that can explain the odd blip up or down in our stats, i.e. as we review an area.

The way that press coverage works is that it would actually be more advantageous to us if our data disagreed with BT/DCMS as negative always gets higher coverage than 'yes their figures are about right' The real test will be when an area declares 100% superfast as then only need to find one postcode that is not superfast to reduce this to 99.99%

FYI
Your speedtest map links to http://gov.wales/topics/science-and-technology/digit... which is password protected?

It gets mentioned when checking for Welsh postcodes in slow areas:
Details of the basic broadband subsidy scheme (2 Mbps USC) for your area are available on the Sir Fynwy - Monmouthshire USC subsidy microsite. The subsidy of up to £400 should cover the install and hardware for a basic satellite broadband connection.

Is it possible to see where you are plotting cabinets on any of your speed related pages? I see you can show exchanges but it would be useful to see where the cabinets are - or have I missed it? Edit: I appreciate other sites do show cabinet locations...

Edited by b4dger (Tue 16-Feb-16 14:01:43)

Sometimes that Welsh voucher page seems to be password protected and then they fix it?

No need to pester them have found another version of the link that seems to work.

http://gov.wales/topics/science-and-technology/digit...

Edited by MrSaffron (Tue 16-Feb-16 14:33:40)

We don't show them, for the exact reason you are complaining, i.e. where lines are seen to be performing badly we might position a cabinet in a 'wrong' location to add to the line length that produces the most representative result for the cabinet foot print.

Also the checker site covers a multitude of providers where cabinet locations are irrelevant, strictly speaking so is the exchange but we compromised on that.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

...you are complaining...

I'm not complaining just providing you with some feedback!

Apologies - was not meant to be taken in the Victor Meldrew complaining sense

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

So it appears that about 70% of those who could upgrade, have no great interest in doing so; with ADSL being sufficient for their requirements; or Dial-up; or are not concerned to have access to the Internet.

Im sure cost is the major factor. Maybe faster but unless you download or stream HD content then you probably dont need to spend the extra it costs to have fibre. Even HD can be streamed on ADSL. Alot cant warrant paying the extra for fibre a month.

But then the issue is if/when fibre comes down in cost, will more suddenly want it, resulting in more cabs requiring upgrades which cost OR money, which gets passed to the user?

HD can barely be streamed on ADSL (max) and even then you need a fast connection, HD on ADSL2+ is easier to do. Of course distance from exchange impacts on speeds.

But if you are on a decent 10Mbps+ ADSL2+ connection you might not see the need to upgrade if you are on a 5Mbps ADSLMax connection you might be more likely to upgrade.

The question is what does the data look like for upgrading from those on fast ADSL2+ connections to those on slow ADSLMax/2+ connections?

I have posted a similar post to this one previously.
Have read all the posts on this subject in this recent post and my comment is that the FAMOUS UP TO, get out of jail card used by all ISPs.
I believe it should be, if you sign an agreement to accept a service, the phase UP TO should not exist.
The service you get is what you should pay for, no more or less.
if a speed test is done for a number of days then averaged out, then that is what you should pay for.
But there again there are powerful interests which will not agree to this.
Yes I have heard all the reasons for UP TO,but afraid we just lie down and take the 'crumbs' from the table.
Free market competition does not exist, with the BT Monopoly in existence.

In reply to a post by helpoort:

I believe it should be, if you sign an agreement to accept a service, the phase UP TO should not exist.

Until ISPs know where you live, they can't quote anything other than "up to". Once they know where you live (phone number entered), they will quote an estimated speed. All major ISPs have signed up to the Ofcom code of practice on speeds, whereby customers can leave penalty free if they get less than their estimate.

I can't see how they can make it fairer.

Edited by Oliver341 (Tue 16-Feb-16 17:19:33)

Say you paint white lines for a living. The longer the line the more it costs you to paint both in the cost of the paint and the time taken by you or your staff.

You only have three options for how you charge. By length of line, so the longer the more your customer pays you, or you charge a fixed price for a line but the longer it is the thinner it is. The "thinner" can be narrow for the full length, or start at full width then taper to half width at half distance and zero at the end.

How are you going to charge your customers to maximise your turnover and profit? Also bearing in mind your overheads of travelling to the start of the line and back from the end of it.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 16-Feb-16 17:21:41)

Depends on the codecs used.

I stream stuff which is mainly H.264 encoded (some H.265) and I can watch 1080p (I know it's not blu ray quality 1080p but it's still excellent quality) on my 7 meg connection. Video needs around 4mbps, 5.1 about another 500kbps.

Nothing stopping them abandoning up to, just simply sell broadband as a 160 Kbps service and guarantee that level of speed.

Some providers have tried PAYG broadband usage charging, but never widely popular and that is where the cost really is, i.e. the amount of data we transfer, i.e. a person on FTTC with 15 Mbps speeds costs the same to provide a line for as someone getting 38 Mbps, and only fractionally more if they are on a up to 76 Mbps package. Ironically if we want to go down the route of paying for what people get, then those buying a home further from the exchange/cabinet should be paying more as the infrastructure cost more to put in place.

In reply
LEAVE TO GO WHERE.
What did Henry Ford say, any colour as long as it is black.
I repeat, pay for what you receive.

Have you got a water meter?

I repeat, pay for what you receive.

What would be much fairer would be for you to pay what it costs the supplier to provide the service. This could mean the more rural the higher the price with reduced costs for those living in major population centres. I don't subscribe to this solution but it is in line with what you are suggesting which takes no account of the costs involved in providing a service at a distance.

In reply to a post by MCM:

I repeat, pay for what you receive.

What would be much fairer would be for you to pay what it costs the supplier to provide the service. This could mean the more rural the higher the price with reduced costs for those living in major population centres. I don't subscribe to this solution but it is in line with what you are suggesting which takes no account of the costs involved in providing a service at a distance.

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

In reply to a post by MacLe0d:

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

Because it costs ISPs more to provide services on those exchanges..

Edited by gt94sss2 (Wed 17-Feb-16 00:40:59)

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

You clearly don't understand basic economics. The costs to the service providers such as ISPs and OR are far more than simply the cost of sending bits from the user to the internet. Connections to remote and rural users involve much higher installation and maintenance costs than those in more concentrated population centres where the distances involved are much shorter.

There is a solution of course where users pay a realistic cost for their connection based upon where they live and the cost of providing and maintaining that connection together with a PAYG usage charge. I can't help suspect that this would lead to increased costs for many remote and rural users since each would be paying the true cost of their connection and city dwellers would see a decrease in their costs.

As I have already said, I do not support this model but it could well be the result of following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

According to the commemorative book published about 1955, covering the first 50 years of The Ford Motor Company, the "Model T" was available over its life-span in 14 (fourteen) different colours!

Although first only available in black, a dark green was introduced very early on, to satisfy the large farming community in the USA.

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

You need to contact Ofcom to complain about that, not BT. BT are required to charge at a certain level on exchanges specified by Ofcom. This is supposed to be to allow LLU suppliers a chance to be able to undercut BT because there is a potential level of profit margin.

Ofcom do not set this minimum pricing on exchanges where they consider there to be competition and so BT are allowed to set the wholesale price themselves rather than having to satisfy a particular margin test that Ofcom specify.

A small number of ISPs pass on the lower prices that wholesale charge on exchanges where Ofcom aren't doing that level of regulation. The ISPs that charge the same for all are essentially not passing on the wholesale savings to the customers on the cheaper exchanges.

So, the actual situation is the opposite of what you think it is. If BT weren't regulated on those exchanges that have little or no competition then they would potentially reduce the wholesale prices - but Ofcom won't let them.

Blame the right people. And in this case that is Ofcom.

In reply to a post by ian72:

The ISPs that charge the same for all are essentially not passing on the wholesale savings to the customers on the cheaper exchanges.

I suspect that it is actually the other way round as 85-90% of the population are in lower cost areas. Where ISPs charge the same nationally, they are not passing on the extra costs to provide the service to the more rural areas (the last 10% etc)

But the rest of your post is right - BT never used to have geographic pricing until forced to by Ofcom

Edited by gt94sss2 (Wed 17-Feb-16 09:16:11)

How odd then that Plusnet are just about the lowest priced BT Wholesale providers on Market B and also EE on previously "out of area" exchanges. EE are the very strange one - basing it on where they had LLU were not just a vISP.

By your argument these two would be charging the same in most areas as the rest, the rest including BT Consumer, and far more in Market A. They don't.

The LLU suppliers and their resellers are different in that their far lower costs in general are the underlying factor. They don't have to provide telephone exchanges and local loop infrastructure.

I'm afraid that's just the way it is. How is it "fair" that somebody living in a city has to put up with higher levels of air pollution, traffic congestion and noise? How is it "fair" that somebody living further from a railway station has to pay more for a taxi trip to it? For that matter, how is it "fair" that those who live in urban areas have to cross-subsidise universal services, like phones, mail and rubbish collection for those in less densely populated areas.

This is a question of economics, not "fairness". It simply costs a lot more to provide services to those in less densely populated areas. There's very little difference in the cost of providing (say) 25mbps and 15mbps (a little bit of backhaul). It's very likely the cost of provision of the actual line is higher. More expensive to install, more expensive to maintain.

So what would you prefer? a system whereby you pay (say) by the full economic cost of provision or one that is, to at least some extent (in the form of the line) subsidised by others?

Edited by deleted (Wed 17-Feb-16 10:00:49)

In reply to a post by ian72:

So, the actual situation is the opposite of what you think it is. If BT weren't regulated on those exchanges that have little or no competition then they would potentially reduce the wholesale prices - but Ofcom won't let them.

Incorrect.

Ofcom set a charge cap on Market A exchanges, there's nothing to stop BT wholesale selling thier services cheaper there. Why don't they? Because they can charge what they like due to there being no competition.

The only thing you could accuse Ofcom of is not setting the cap low enough, but the cap has to take into account the increased cost to BT of provisioning at smaller exchanges.

Ironically if we want to go down the route of paying for what people get, then those buying a home further from the exchange/cabinet should be paying more as the infrastructure cost more to put in place.

Tell it like it is girlfriend !

Rural areas are just as important as urban areas and each plays a part in the overal UK economy. And yes Ofcom should have done/do something about exchanges which will never been unbundled.

Here is a big jump in subject.
Had a telephone call from Toronto which lasted 40 minutes.
I remarked that this call was going to be expensive, the caller replied. No, not at all .
Unlimited international calls cost SIX DOLLARS A MONTH.
I could never understand why, my cousin phoned her Mother every day when she reached her place of work after leaving her Mother's home.Her Mother told me local calls were free.(That was over thirty years ago)
Can one see that EVER happening here,not really.
Big Brother has all calls including mobile going through their network, so that answers that.
£17.99 per month line rental, what a PLEASURE.
Don't reply by saying there are cheaper suppliers.I know.
The telephone infrastructure was funded by taxpayers.

Yes but usually such calls start off local then get transferred to the internet. But using apps like Viber, international calls can cost you nought. My wife regularly calls her daughter in Vietnam (video calls every time I might add). Both are using smartphones connected to the local internet. Yes, fast internet certainly does help but the quality of both video and voice is A1 in my book. Yes, we do pay for the internet (unlimited usage) but the actual calls themselves are free of any further charges. 40mins is small fry in her book - think hours. I dread to think how much we'd pay a telco for such calls.

Isn't this like using Skype or Facetime?

Strange

The vast majority of our UK Calls, Land-line to Land-Line, Any Time, are free, apart from remembering to hang up at the 58th minute, and re-dialling - Very rarely do our calls exceed a few minutes.

We have 1,000 minutes free for Land-Line to Mobiles; but rarely use more than a few minutes.

And we have free or very cheap calls to about 25 overseas countries.

No special agreements, standard contract.

Same same. All free!

Silly, silly me !!!!! to think ill of BT
The British Infrastructure Group and backed by 121 MPs -both Labour and Conservative, called for BT to be split from it's Openreach division. All major internet service providers except Virgin pay Openreach to carry their service.
Critics of this arrangement argue that BT has no incentive to improve it's broadband infrastructure because rival ISP's would benefit.It has left 5.7 million Brits with "dire" internet speeds, the report claims despite BT receiving £1.7bn from the Government to fund the delivery of super-fast broadband.The report stated that most of those stuck on slow speeds live in the countryside, it adds 'BT seems content to ignore forgotten rural communities.
The headline from the article reported here is:
Is BT treating the British public like fools?.

While there is a debate to be had, the report you refer to had so many flaws in the data that it probably would have been better releasing it with no data.

What I will say is this, if we keep on at BT Group to get better and deal with 100% coverage at whatever speed people think is fine, how will this improve competition and ability for others to offer better services in the future? The message should be how can we encourage others to compete on a commercial basis and either they wipe out Openreach and BT Group or the PLC ups its game in response. The vast majority of BT is bad calls otherwise are just asking for the group to improve and thus make it harder for the emerging rural competitors to compete.

So the chickens are AT LAST coming home to roost.
BT must hate this latest report, published yesterday.
In a statement that will surprise few, it said despite Openreach's obligation to treat everyone fairly "the evidence from Ofcom�s review shows Openreach still has an incentive to make decisions in the interests of BT, rather than BT�s competitors, which can lead to competition problemsWill be interested in comments from the Monopolist supporters.

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Feb-16 17:19:28)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If you goto https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?area... you will see our stats for Glasgow City and you fall into the gap between the two lines you can see when you click the history button i.e. 0.9% of Glasgow passed by a VDSL2 or cable service but not able to get superfast speeds.

The broadband provider should have given you a speed estimate at the time of signing up and before you committed to upgrading.

The UK as a whole has 92.8% able to get something like VDSL2/cable/FTTH but the figure for those superfast is lower at 88.6% to 89.3% depending on whether you call superfast something over 24 Mbps or over 30 Mbps

The figures you have for Exeter are miles off reality.

97.4% can get superfast. Sure... pull the other one.

There are whole areas with no fibre serving thousands and thousands of homes. Areas where FTTP was part installed and abandoned with no FTTC alternative, areas like my office which are between 2 enabled cabs, where the fibre goes PAST ours, and was blatantly left out intentionally, and not because it wouldn't be feasible).

On one large trading estate, you're lucky to get 1.5 meg in many parts of it that I encounter regularly. We have quite a large number of lines in the Exeter area (not sure how you're definiing Exeter) where this sort of speed is still normal.

Below 2 meg USC ... absolutely, plenty of areas.
Below 15 meg... wayyyyy more than 1.5%
92% of Exeter can get Virgin... haha.
In fact, I'd find it unlikely we have 9.72% FTTP - there are a few chunks, but there are far more that are completely abandoned, unfinished and are no longer being done (were dumped years ago now).

The Devon figure is also laughable.

Hell, I've got customers in the EXETER area with FTTC who get 6 meg.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If you goto https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?area... you will see our stats for Glasgow City and you fall into the gap between the two lines you can see when you click the history button i.e. 0.9% of Glasgow passed by a VDSL2 or cable service but not able to get superfast speeds.

The broadband provider should have given you a speed estimate at the time of signing up and before you committed to upgrading.

The UK as a whole has 92.8% able to get something like VDSL2/cable/FTTH but the figure for those superfast is lower at 88.6% to 89.3% depending on whether you call superfast something over 24 Mbps or over 30 Mbps

I've just checked a postcode... your average speed test is vaguely right in that it suggests under 2 meg. However, you think that there's a chance of:

ultrafast - there isn't
superfast fibre - there isn't
fibre - there isn't

If your data is including those sorts of things then it is miles off reality - that's just one postcode of many.

In reply to a post by helpoort:

So the chickens are AT LAST coming home to roost.
BT must hate this latest report, published yesterday.
In a statement that will surprise few, it said despite Openreach's obligation to treat everyone fairly "the evidence from Ofcom�s review shows Openreach still has an incentive to make decisions in the interests of BT, rather than BT�s competitors, which can lead to competition problemsWill be interested in comments from the Monopolist supporters.

And do TT and Sky treat everyone fairly? BT is a business just like Sky and TT etc... Sky, TT etc.. will make decisions which are in their interests rather than those of their competitors.

So tell me the postcodes I have wrong and will happily exclude them - bad figures = more coverage for the work

Given the population of Exeter unless you give us a location in terms of postcode then its impossible to sift the daft by hand

On the FTTP again tell us which chunks are not complete and where people cannot order and more than happy to remove, and then explain why the charts are on a downward trend.

Okay have found a couple of partially built FTTP areas, and a quick look at recent Virgin Media tests suggests a spread consistent with high Virgin coverage, so to delve into things still need postcode examples of where I am wrong.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Given the population of Exeter unless you give us a location in terms of postcode then its impossible to sift the daft by hand

On the FTTP again tell us which chunks are not complete and where people cannot order and more than happy to remove, and then explain why the charts are on a downward trend.

Whole parts of Heavitree... for one. EX1 and EX4 postcode areas - I'll have to ask for some examples. There are also areas just off the city Centre which were originally getting FTTP, and some systems say it's there, but it is absolutely not - there is no FTTP in the ducting, as I've been there, seen it with Openreach.

All I'd say is that the data on Exeter is absolutely incorrect, my business is based here, and we have to try and provision people every day.

EX1 and EX4 is a postcode area, but I need specific postcodes to work with, otherwise I am spending the afternoon looking through many postcodes availability data and speed tests and might be looking in the totally wrong areas.

Another way is to just say the exchange and cabinet number to look at, which is a small enough area to work on one at a time.

A quick review of the Virgin Media data shows the sort of speed test density I'd expect for the coverage levels, of course there will be some postcodes marked incorrectly, but certainly not to the point where I'd say 'absolutely incorrect' and already from a casual sweep I've seen issues with cabs 5, 8 and 83 and found a mass of EO FTTC upgrades in Pin Hope.

Yes I realise they're postcode areas and not specific postcodes

So what level of virgin media coverage do you think is sensible to state for Exeter?

Will then have an idea of how much work, i.e. whether to clear the tables for the next week and concentrate on that single town.

Okay FTTP is a pain but do-able, the verification of Virgin Media is a lot slower, so am in need of the postcodes to figure them out.

Have done some random hunting and result looks to be Virgin Media coverage is increasing.

Still blinkered.
BT is a MONOLOPY.
Have a look at what happened when New Zealand got rid of their Monolopy.

Actually I did, and moans about install times and delays, repeat visits to get service activated still happen.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Okay FTTP is a pain but do-able, the verification of Virgin Media is a lot slower, so am in need of the postcodes to figure them out.

Have done some random hunting and result looks to be Virgin Media coverage is increasing.

Hi, just a couple of bits to help you....

Cabinet 25 was scheduled for FTTP.
Fibre was run up poles then abandoned. Postcodes that were supposed to be covered (and cannot get any fibre whatsoever) include:

EX2 5JB (mine, plus no Virgin for this postcode and they have said they will not install it - assuming not commercially viable).
EX1 3BR
EX1 3BU
EX1 3DD
EX2 5HB
EX2 5HE
EX2 5HJ
EX2 5HL
EX2 5HN
EX2 5HY
EX2 5JE
EX2 5JH
EX2 5JH
EX2 5JQ
EX2 5LD
EX2 5LJ

It looks like cabinet 24 just around the corner did get their FTTP install though - EX1 3BT gets 330Mbps.

Some of these postcodes will be able to get Virgin as this was installed to some during the Eurobell days.

Will have another go in the area tomorrow, plus need to revisit some of the other FTTP areas where am adding the postcodes as the roll-out goes

Found two postcodes marked as cabinet 61 and moved to cab 25 and Virgin Media site is not working currently.