back to article Ofcom just told BT to up its game on fibre investment

The chief exec of Ofcom, Sharon White, has told BT it must up its game to improve Blighty’s piss-poor fibre broadband penetration. While that might sound like tough talk, it’s also only words. In a recent speech at the former state monopoly’s rival Virgin Media HQ, White outlined the fact the UK still only has around 3 per …

  1. Anonymous Noel Coward
    Flame

    On the topic of BT's refusal to upgrade the crappy infrastructure - not to mention it's continuing avarice - I saw this image the other day which angered me a great deal.

    https://i.imgur.com/ZGlfJd4.png

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @anonymous Noel Coward

      It does say the bandwidth is faster than 99% of the other connections in the country but I get your point

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you can get 75M down / 17M up - which means you're within about 300m of the cabinet (*) - then I'd say the current price is not too bad, especially if you shop around.

      But for those of us who live further from the cabinet, we pay more or less the same for much crappier speeds.

      There are 55/10 and 40/10 bands which are marginally cheaper at wholesale, but Plusnet only sell the 40/2 variant, the mean gits. So if you want any more than 2Mbps upload, you have to pay for 80M that you can't get.

      (*) https://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2013/chart-bt-fttc-vdsl2-speed-against-distance

      1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

        40/2?

        I've got (officially) Plusnet 32?/2 FTTC so it's final leg over wet clothes-line between posts but that's just been upgraded to 30/19 ... so 40/2 sounds old hat to me and it's worth checking the offerings.

      2. Roland6 Silver badge

        >but Plusnet only sell the 40/2 variant, the mean gits.

        So don't be loyal!

        EE standard fibre offers are 80/20 and 40/10; in my area, it also has the benefit of having a rather low contention ratio... Additionally, by playing the system (cashback, discount codes, offers etc.) the amount you actually pay is not too dissimilar to Plusnet.

        As you note, the vdsl2 speed distance chart is useful, in my case it meant there was no value in me even thinking of subscribing to the 80/20 service.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    BT have already been paid to do this, no more just mouthing

    Just take the money back already, if they can't pay then take Openreach back. Problem solved

    1. localzuk Silver badge

      Re: BT have already been paid to do this, no more just mouthing

      Sadly not - they were paid to install FTTC.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: BT have already been paid to do this, no more just mouthing

      In what way have BT been paid to do it? They were given a subsidy to do FTTC in some rural areas, decided on by councils.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: BT have already been paid to do this, no more just mouthing

        BT since privatisation have had more than enough money from the tax payer to put in the fibre, they redirected the funds and never completed the task they were paid for.

  3. djstardust

    Oh no .... not again .....

    BT know OFFCOM are useless and have absolutely no power.

    BT know the government minister in charge of the communication remit is usually someone from outwith the industry with no clue whatsoever that lasts six months.

    BT know they can put up their prices every nine months (to pay for football very few people want) with no consequence as they have done for the past three years.

    BT treat the entire country as mugs whilst "protecting their shareholder interest", and until someone somewhere grows a set of balls and puts them in their place nothing will change.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Full fibre? Like Weetabix?

    "Full fibre" is a meaningless term at the best of times, but if she means "able to access broadband at speeds over 200 Mbps", then rather than the paltry 3% availability she mentions, approximately 55% of households in the UK already have the potential to access Virginmedia's cable network (although only about 20% of those choose to do so).

    If government want better penetration of high speed services, then they need to unbundle the VM cable network (opening up competition on cable services), and then focus on getting Openreach/BT to sort out those areas that have no high speed service at all. If they don't do that, then all that will happen is that BT will duplicate Virginmedia's footprint with FTTP at vast cost, and everybody living outside of those dual-served urban areas will be left on damp string and dial-up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Full fibre? Like Weetabix?

      You are right the majority of houses are in the cities and that is where virgin live, it would indeed be nice to just grab Virgin's network but unlike BT, Virgin paid for theirs themselves.

      BT on the other hand have been sucking from the taxpayer since they were privatized and have used the money for pretty much everything other than what it was the intended for.

      I personally would say that unless BT can suddenly put in the infrastructure we have paid for then we get our money or Openreach back. Then we can come to an amicable arrangement with virgin on city internet only connections and allow them the same access for the farmers and others who live out of the cities.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Full fibre? Like Weetabix?

        it would indeed be nice to just grab Virgin's network

        Nobody said anything about "grabbing" or nationalising VM's assets.

        All that's required is that VM set up a chinese wall (as BT are supposed to for Openreach, as happens with electricity distribution, gas distribution, and increasingly water) and to offer use of the network to other suppliers on the same terms as they offer it to their own retail function.

        Anybody who think's that is unfair should consider that Virginmedia are not some plucky upstart, they're a large, non-too-sprightly but very profitable infrastructure & retail business. And there's a precedent in telecoms - why do MNO's allow MVNOs to use their networks? They paid for those networks themselves, but they're aware that if they don't strike agreements with MVNOs then they are at risk of the competition authorities wading in. VM's vertically integrated position is an artefact of how predecessor companies were formed, there's now no reason to stick with rules that require BT to allow Virginmedia to use their local loop infrastructure, but prevent BT and other retailers using VM's local loop. You can argue that these rules should not apply to smaller network operator, but Virginmedia have cherry picked the majority of UK urban areas, I can see no reason why they should be "protected" from Sky, BT or anybody else.

        Moreover, unbundling Virginmedia's cable assets could make a lot more money for Virginmedia by making much better use of their network where there's capacity (and pay for more capacity where appropriate), and it could reduce the capital and roll out problems for Openreach by dramatically reducing the size of the task they face. It all depends what you want: Openreach clearly can't do a national FTTP roll out any time soon, and want subsidies to do it. If they were relieved of the obligation to do FTTP for 50-60% of UK homes, that would put the resources where they are probably more needed. And VM customers might quite like to have a cable connection with a choice of service provider.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "Anybody who think's that is unfair should consider..Virginmedia..not some plucky upstart,"

          Quite true.

          It's been suggested there should be a central "infrastructure fund" that all providers pay into. You want access to the ducts you pay into it, and all ducts are in the fund. A trickier question would be should the companies pay for access to their own ducts?

          But perhaps a better idea might be to study how the Spanish got this funded?

          What form of telecomms governance has allowed them to progress so much further and faster?

          BTW IIRC Spain is considerably bigger than the UK and has considerably lower average population density.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Anybody who think's that is unfair should consider..Virginmedia..not some plucky upstart,"

            A trickier question would be should the companies pay for access to their own ducts?

            BT do, although there's questions as to whether this is all done transparently and fairly. Same with electricity companies - if they supply electricity even over their own distribution network, they have to pay their wires business at the same rates that it charges other suppliers.

            That's the great thing about unbundling - if the original vertically integrated business is as competitive and efficient as they all claim to be, then they have nothing to fear from unbundling....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Full fibre? Like Weetabix?

        ...unlike BT, Virgin paid for theirs themselves...

        But did they actually lay the cables or just buy up companies that had done?

        1. localzuk Silver badge

          Re: Full fibre? Like Weetabix?

          That's the thing - most of the cable network in the country appears to have come through other companies building it, going bust and the assets being acquired ever upwards until it hit Virgin.

  5. AndrueC Silver badge
    Meh

    A rapid national roll-out will also need a big increase in the number of telecoms engineers and associated equipment. The faster we want it done the more people we will need and they will need training first. Or maybe we can import some from the EU if any are going spare. And if no-one objects to that.

    I'm not trying to be obstructionist, just practical. Fibre cables don't lay themselves no matter who is doing it or how much money they can throw at the project. In a way it's a good thing - creating loads of reasonably skilled jobs. Even better if they can be filled by home-grown labour. But I don't think there are currently thousands of telecoms engineers just hanging around on street corners looking for work.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      But I don't think there are currently thousands of telecoms engineers just hanging around on street corners looking for work.

      1.4 million people classified as able to work but unemployed, according to ONS. I appreciate that the balance of skills/abilities won't be a great match, but there's plenty of people of all skills required to have a national roll out, manual, blue collar and white collar. If the industry can't find people to do the work, then they need to perhaps think about training people to do the job, rather than immediately hoping just to hire somebody off the street, or importing somebody with the skills in place.

      1. AndrueC Silver badge

        If the industry can't find people to do the work, then they need to perhaps think about training people to do the job, rather than immediately hoping just to hire somebody off the street, or importing somebody with the skills in place.

        Oh absolutely but training takes time and costs money. Thinkbroadband attempted a study of just this nearly two years ago.

        "... Scaling this up Openreach would need an extra 130,000 staff with an annual wage bill of £2.6 billion to have kept pace (Openreach engineer starting salary is in the £19,000 to £21,000 region, and we have ignored the extra costs of training, fleet vehicles etc for this simple projection)."

        By my reckoning that implies 0.5% of the entire UK workforce dedicated to this task. As for the types of job well that's a great discussion point. For sure it doesn't take 'great skill' to dig a trench but I don't think there'll be all that much trench digging. It should be mostly fibre blowing and that's a skilled job. In any case I don't think we want unskilled labour building our next generation network. Surely our intention is for this upgrade to last many decades and to provide faultless operation. It needs to be built to the highest standards.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Study is a strong term to describe that article from thinkbroadband.

          "wet finger in the air" is a more scientific approach than that taken here.

  6. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

    I really didn't think Virgin put full-fibre into properties, it's coax isn't it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes.

      But it hardly matters what the connection is made of. I couldn't care if it is made of a tube filled with snail porridge, all that I care about is having a fast connection.

      I suspect that Openreach won't be offering real FTTP for residential users either, and that they'll be offering G.Fast, which still uses copper pairs for the last few hundred yards, with the fibre extended from the traditional cabinet to a node closer to the properties served.

      1. AndrueC Silver badge
        Happy

        I suspect that Openreach won't be offering real FTTP for residential users either,

        In their latest proposal, yes they are. It's GPON (individual fibres are aggregated by a manifest rather than dedicated all the way to the head-end) but that's as near to 'true' FTTP as any other telco is doing/has done.

        Openreach already cover over half a million premises with FTTP and have relaunched their FTTPoD product with improved pricing from February. What that means is that anyone that can currently get FTTC and has deep(ish) pockets can order GPON FTTP to their home today. The new pricing makes it easier for a street of people (or an ISP) to get together to share costs.

  7. xeroks

    loss making excercise

    Looking back to the 90's when many people got cable installed, you had many comparatively small companies doing the work.

    AFAIK they were unable to extract the revenue to pay for that investment. After that initial round of cable laying, they stopped: any housing developments built since were not hooked up simply because the expense outweighed future revenues.

    FTTP will be in the same boat. The infrastructure should be considered a public utility.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: loss making excercise

      After that initial round of cable laying, they stopped: any housing developments built since were not hooked up simply because the expense outweighed future revenues.

      Well, Verminmedia's Project Lightning was supposed to extend the network where those sorts of gaps exist - they'll still check whether its economic for them, and if not they won't do it, but the idea was specifically to get more customers connected without having to cable entire towns. Of course, they screwed up Project Lightning, and my experience as cable customer is that the Virginmedia business is being run as a cash cow - excessive prices, refusal to invest in capex, failure to provide the premium, customer-focused service that their pricing implies, and rubbish cable modems (the infamous Hub 3).

      I suspect that (despite my reasonably practical LLU suggestion earlier) Virginmedia's directors think the UK cable business is living on borrowed time, and will be less and less viable as and when BT roll out G.Fast. Faced with lower revenues in future, they're paring everything to the bone now.

  8. Colonel Mad

    Wind Turbines & Fibre

    I have been told that windturbines, you know, those things most prevelant in the largley deserted countryside, have a fibre connection for control use. if it's "cost effective" to lay fibre for these marginal sources of energy, then surely it can't be too difficult or expensive to do so for communications.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

      That's rather different. So if you're building a wind farm, you'd need to build pads to mount them, access roads and lay power cables to tie in to the grid. So running some fibre at the same time would be a tiny cost compared to the total project cost. Data requirements probably aren't that high for control and monitoring unless there's a lot of CCTV. There'd still be challenges with connecting the farm back to the 'net or control centre though.

      1. Commswonk

        Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

        And don't forget that electricity users (i.e. everybody) pays a premium for renewables... and that will doubtless help pay for fibre to be laid to the wind farms.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

        So running some fibre at the same time would be a tiny cost compared to the total project cost.

        The comparison would be against copper - and it would cost as much to lay a copper connection as a fibre link (trenching or stringing from poles is going to cost the same for either, and that construction is the bulk of the cost).

        Why would anybody (other than BT) mess around laying copper data connections across country, when there's no good reason, and the overall costs are the same?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

      It’s cost effective because the people renting those fibres might be paying £10k or more for the installation. If homeowners were willing to pay that much then they too can have fibre today.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

      "have a fibre connection for control use."

      Yes, that has a lot to do with windmills being tall and pointy and attracting electric charge zappy thingies from the sky.

      It's hard to communicate down a line which has just turned to copper vapour.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

        "Yes, that has a lot to do with windmills being tall and pointy and attracting electric charge zappy thingies from the sky."

        I really don't think it does. There are well established ways of protecting metallic circuits to what get called 'hot sites'. The type of fibre used to deliver service to something located in a field would have a metal sheath, rather spoiling your point.

    4. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      Re: Wind Turbines & Fibre

      I have been told that windturbines ... have a fibre connection for control use.

      Don't believe everything you have been told ! Newer ones may well have, as pointed out a large part of the cost of installation will be the same for copper or fibre. But I know (from having worked very briefly on trying to diagnose a comms problem for a client at my last job) that in one local windfarm there's an old Hayes 2400bps modem hooked up to a phone line. And the machine side of that is hooked up to a copper serial cable between the 5 windmills.

      From the practical PoV, to put a copper line in will almost certainly have only needed a cable from the nearest joint box - probably half a mile at most - while fibre would have been a whole run all the way back to the exchange which is a good few miles (much of which won't be in ducts or even on poles - there's a lot of direct buried steel wire armoured phone cable out in the sticks).

      There is indeed a requirement for connectivity to the windfarm, and to each windmill in it - the speed doesn't actually have to be that fast. How it's delivered will depend on a whole list of factors.

  9. ShortLegs

    I've been posting the solution here, and on thinkbroadband.com, for over 15 years now.

    1. Change residential estate planning requirements to include FTTP, classifying fibre as an essential utillity in the same was as electricity, water, and sewerage. It costs 10x more to retroactively lay fibre once a build is complete than it does to lay during construction.

    2. Engage in a nationwide, state-owned FTTP network. Sure, BT and Virgin will scream blue murder, but in places where they have presence the edge-backhaul could be rented, and the last mile state-owned. Where last-mile exists, buy/rent from the operator.

    Option 2 has the potential to massively reduce unemployment in the build-out areas, upskill entire generations of folk - in turn increasing their marketabillity here and abroad, increase local spending (construction staff like their coffee, sarnies, etc). And then contract on-going network management and maintenance to either a state-owned subsidary or the existing players.

    Sure, thats overly simplified, but it's only a question of scale.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you've been posting it for 15 years and no-one has taken it up, do you think you might be wrong?

      Don't go all John McDonnell on the numbers for option 2, show us the working.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No numbers, "state owned provider"....I reckon the OP is Diane Abbott.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Virgin, Colt, Cityfibre, Hyperoptic, BT and KCom would immediately take the government to court and the government would lose.

      Any government that sets itself up in competition with businesses and ruins the investments made in those businesses will see future investment dwindle to nothing. The WTO would also take an interest - Virgin being US owned.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      How much of the country do you think has sewerage? Mains gas?

      Ubiquity is expensive - last 10% costs as much as the first 90. In other words, serving the last 10% in a USO model doubles everyone’s bills. That’s why lots of homes don’t have mains gas or sewers.

  10. Simon Rockman

    There is deliberate obfuscating of "fibre" and "superfast". When White says "fibre" it's very hard to tell what she is talking about - FTTC? V.fast? FTTP?

    We've been here before. BT "launched" Infinity 4, it's 300mps service in 2013 and promised fast roll out. That didn't happen. Indeed it appears to have been withdrawn.

    For all the bluster, BT has gone backwards.

    What's good about the rivals Cityfibre, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear, AQL, UFO and others is that they talk about "gigabit". It's a real number. Customers get 1Gps typically for around £30 a month.

    I get a real 200Mps+ from Virgin for £60 a month.

    BT, despite market dominance doesn't come close.

    The universal service of 10Mbps is pathetic, but the one thing BT is good at is talking a good game to government.

    What it needs is Ofcom to properly understand the problem and fix it.

    Of course Openreach needs to be hived off but that's a start not the solution.

    1. Commswonk

      What it needs is Ofcom to properly understand the problem and fix it.

      And part of the problem is that while fully accepting that there are parts of the country that undoubtedly suffer from poor or no speeds, those with decent speeds may not want to be forced into an upgrade to FTTP which will cost (much?) more than they are paying now. I don't want to be forced to pay for an "improved" service when I don't need an improvement.

      Paying a bit to help others out I can live with, paying a lot to improve my service (without the option) is something I can manage without.

      It would be like telling BMW that the Mini is to be made illegal so that RR or Bentley can sell more cars.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Paying a bit to help others out I can live with, paying a lot to improve my service (without the option) is something I can manage without.

        Alright, Openreach charge YOU more to upgrade others, and you'll be happy, yes, so long as they promise not to upgrade YOUR connection?

        What happens if Openreach then charge the people they've upgraded at your expense more, promise them it won't be spent on their service, but will be used to the hard-of-internet still on dial up (that's you). And you'll take their charity? Everybody wins!

        1. Commswonk

          but will be used to the hard-of-internet still on dial up (that's you).

          I am more than a little tempted to be very rude to and about you but won't. Your post does you no favours; either you don't understand the problem or you are being deliberately obtuse.

          I now have 70 something Mb/s download, being a non - optional upgrade (with attendant price rise) from the previous 50 Mb/s.

          I'd rather not have any more unwanted price rises thank you very much.

          And if I seem more than usually tetchy it's because I have been dealing with an outbreak of f***wittery on another forum entirely; the penalty of being a moderator, I suppose.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "We've been here before. BT "launched" Infinity 4, it's 300mps service in 2013 and promised fast roll out. That didn't happen. Indeed it appears to have been withdrawn."

      Actually, it still exists. People in FTTP areas (and presumably G.fast too now) can order it. BT's website won't show you it unless you check a number or address that is in an FTTP area. Of course, the underlying wholesale products are also available to all Openreach CPs

      "What's good about the rivals Cityfibre, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear, AQL, UFO and others is that they talk about "gigabit". It's a real number. Customers get 1Gps typically for around £30 a month."

      That's great, but their potential customer base is dwarfed by Openreach's own tiny FTTP rollout (which itself now offers 1Gbps too). It'll be cheaper than OR and BT, it always will be when you cherry pick (to an extreme if it's the likes of Hyperoptic). Openreach's FTTP network has a lot of pesky rural places on-net. Especially in Cornwall.

      "What it needs is Ofcom to properly understand the problem and fix it."

      Good thing then that Ofcom seems to think the solution is more "competition" by fly-by-night altnets (who, as happened to Royal Mail, will only go for the easy pickings) and further price cuts for Openreach. That'll kickstart some investment!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "What's good about the rivals Cityfibre, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear, AQL, UFO and others is that they talk about "gigabit". It's a real number. Customers get 1Gps typically for around £30 a month."

      Do they get that gigabit uncontended and delivered in both directions, or are the altnets just as guilty of making "upto" promises, ones based on the limitations of their networks?

  11. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    A simple question. How do other countries in Europe do it better?

    Obviously some do it worse.

    But how do those that do it better, y'know, do it?

    Are they really just smaller (in population and surface area)?

    Or are there incentives that encourage the telcos/ISPs (when they have a choice) to go fibre over Copper?

    Because it does not look like Ofcom are cutting it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A simple question. How do other countries in Europe do it better?

      Well, many countries in Europe don’t actually have much consumer fibre. Some have lots in cities but people in rural areas struggle with getting any kind of broadband. In some countries there’s no requirement to wholesale and so the investment case is easier to make - £40 per connection vs £10 a month makes a huge difference.

      The UK has very cheap broadband and very widely available broadband. If the UK had chosen to go for more FTTP neither of those things could be true as only copper lets you roll out fast for not much money.

      The UK, empirically, has exactly the broadband network that the market demand and regulation in place delivers.

  12. MelissaC

    I'd just like an Internet Connection...

    ...that works, that is faster than 0.5 Mb/s down and 0 up (BT); works with Debian Linuxes (ie apt) and costs less than £1 per Gb per Month (satellite). Oh, and has a good chance of staying up and, should the "modem" die, takes less than a week to be replaced (thanks, Avonline, HTF can they be out of stock?!).

    So we could like, you know, stream all this stuff we keep hearing about, for example.

    OK, we chose to live in the country but "SuperFast Essex" seem to be intent on upgrading everyone who had an adequate connection to a SuperFast connection and leaving those of us with practically no connection to stew. Forget the subsidy, it's not been spent where it's needed, only where it's easy to do the work.

    FTTP? We can't even get FTTC, Maybe they should shut up about all the next gen stuff until they catch up with all the parts of the country they've been ignoring for years.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like