Ofcom data - where do they get it?

What might be the source of Ofcom data? I just saw the updated Ofcom statistics for my post code, and I know for sure they are horribly wrong. They claim 99% have access to "NGA" (VDSL2/FTTH/cable/whatever), but I know for sure this is wrong. There is currently no Hyperoptic or Virgin presence in the postcode area and one of the checker sites (kitz?, don't remember) that shows percentages of lines within the area connected to different cabinets or exchanges, shows FTTC availability at 12% or so.

Just curious, as the "official" numbers seem to paint much better a picture of the situation. If this is the case in my area, the same probably applies elsewhere.

H

Firstly do I have it right?
https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/postcode-search

Ofcom for coverage relies on data provided by providers, but I know not to rely on it, as when have looked at the ultrafast set they include many postcodes where GEA-FTTP is just planned or I cannot figure out what the 300 Mbps option actually is

I'm not sure how good the data is either. I live in an area that is served by an old 20CN exchange (so 8Mbps MAX) however, when I put my postcode in it comes up as:

Connection Speed
In the postcode ___ in the summer of 2016

Download
Minimum 1.7 Mbps
Median 7.4 Mbps
Mean 7.2 Mbps
Maximum 13.9 Mbps
Upload
Minimum 0.4 Mbps
Median 0.4 Mbps
Mean 0.6 Mbps
Maximum 1.1 Mbps

Those max figured just aren't possible (unless someone has a leased line or something (or maybe line bonding?))

It does look like they are getting figures from an ADSL2+ connection in there (looking at the upload). I initially thought it may have had some 4G figures but the upload is just too close to the max of a standard ADSL2+ connection. What exchange is it?

EDIT : Another post you talk about Benington. And if that is the case then you do appear to be correct that ADSL2+ is not available from BT Wholesale.

EDIT2 : There is a way they could get that... They might be line bonding multiple ADSL lines.

Edited by ian72 (Tue 25-Apr-17 10:47:31)

From the FAQ:

This checker uses broadband availability and predicted speeds data provided by the UK's major Internet Service Providers in June 2016.

Standard Broadband speed predictions refer to the highest predicted speed of any major ISPs for packages up to 30 Mbit/s. Superfast Broadband speed predictions refer to the highest predicted speed of any major ISPs for packages between 30 and 300 Mbit/s. Ultrafast Broadband speed predictions refer to the highest predicted speed of any major ISPs for packages over 300 Mbit/s. The checker should not be regarded as providing a definitive view and we plan to update the data later in the year.

From the results I have seen it looks like either the providers are being optimistic or Ofcom is continuing to spin the figures to exaggerate its performance.

Our village varied between a notspot and maybe, if lucky, a 1mpbs service prior to the arrival of FTTC and Ofcom shows it as 1mbps for the notspots and 8-12mbps for the up to 1mbps. 12mbps 8 kms from the exchange would be some achievement.

Mobile coverage data is also hugely optimistic as well as being spun in the reports on the basis of outdoor coverage.

And more importantly in my eyes, is thinkbroadband info ok for those postcodes...

The broadband maps show the speed tests done since FTTC was installed (October to December) and the local broadband stats show superfast is available, but some of the postcodes have had no tests done since then so the stats for these are showing extremely low speeds and pulling down the 250m radius average too,

And predictions of availability by me is ok?

Yes they all look right.

In my case Thinkbroadband info is a bit too pessimistic. This particular post code area has 100 or so flats. A few of them, about 10, can get FTTC with a decent speed, the rest is EO. Statistics based on speed tests seem to be correct. As for postcode search, TBB shows "no fibre products available", despite being available to a small percentage.

I do not know what TBB "should" show in these cases where some can get FTTC, while the majority cannot. Nevertheless, TBB figures are more correct than Ofcom figures, as the pessimistic view is what the majority sees.

H

Edited by deleted (Tue 25-Apr-17 17:44:42)

Ofcom's data for my postcode is way out too.
It claims 92% have NGA but reality is none have as we are approximately 5km from the nearest FTTC cabinet.

Once we get beyond 95% we will start hopefully to show the splits, its is a whole new level of working, so all depends on whether it proves worthwhile.

Current system works on a majority decision for each postcode.

In that case your numbers are correct. Ofcom's numbers seem to be somewhat fictional. They might not do splits within postcode area either and make the area 100% NGA if there is a property that can get it. I was just curious about that as politicians and BT spokesmen seem to be referring to Ofcom figures showing everything is fine. <rant> No wonder no one is interested in upgrading our EO lines if they think it has already been done. </rant>

H

In reply to a post by hvis42:

They might not do splits within postcode area either and make the area 100% NGA if there is a property that can get it.

Cant be that. Ofcom show my postcode as 92% have NGA. Not one can order a fibre based service from BT. There were errors in the BT DSL Checker database a few years ago that has several properties in our postcode listed as having full 80/20 FTTC but I contacted them to highlight the error and they have been corrected. Perhaps Ofcom data is based on old data sets?

I've also noticed that if you are too far from the FTTC cabinet, BT's DSL checker doesnt display any FTTC results but for ISP's reselling Talk Talk "fibre" products, they sometimes show FTTC as being available albeit at less than 2Mbps speeds. Perhaps this counts as NGA in Ofcom numbers?

Premises where VDSL2 is at the cabinet but distance means speeds likely to be marginally better than ADSL or sometimes worse still count as NGA. The Ofcom data is March/April/May 2016 roughly, variation down to no idea which data sets providers give out e.g. Openreach delivers quarterly reports to counties so likely that Ofcom got one of those so may actually be 31st March 2016.

On the providers checkers, with the move towards 'more honest' speeds then expect to see more variation in what different providers do or do not offer you, i.e. I expect it to be harder for those with sub 0.5 Mbps ADSL but where VDSL2 may manage 5 Mbps to find it harder to find an ISP willing to sell them a service.

In reply to a post by hvis42:

In that case your numbers are correct. Ofcom's numbers seem to be somewhat fictional. They might not do splits within postcode area either and make the area 100% NGA if there is a property that can get it.

There was a time when Ofcom did do that, but eventually they realised the figures were nonsense.

Ok. Not that then. In my postcode area they claim 99% is NGA, but only 10% of properties are connected to a cabinet. Others are definitely EO, which means the number is horribly wrong.

Wouldn't matter otherwise, but just a couple of weeks ago someone near BT started a Twitter brouhaha by tweeting that BT/OR have fulfilled their promises to our area (SE16) and 95% have now superfast, and based this on Ofcom data. TBB data shows a completely different picture with only 81,2% superfast.

It appears Ofcom figures, erroneous as they are, are used in decision making or at least propaganda, despite being more or less work of fiction that Mr Trump would categorise as "alternative facts".

H

Which Ofcom dataset are you using? A link might help...

The data behind the Connected Nations 2016 report

We integrated it into the postcode search on https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/postcode-search so people can see what we hold and what Ofcom hold in just one place

I do not have a link to the original Ofcom data. I just use the view provided by Thinkbroadband when doing a postcode search. It shows Ofcom data as well as TBB speed test results.

H

Ah... right.

I found the Ofcom website. Pretty numbers & map, but not the detail that people were using here.

You need to download the CSV data files to get the data, hence my integration