You may not have noticed, but 'superfast' broadband is available to 94% of Blighty Superfast internet speeds are within reach of nearly 94 per cent of the UK, according to figures compiled by Thinkbroadband. The research, which covered the three months to September, found that 93.9 per cent of premises in Blighty have access to 24Mbps. That is an increase from regulator Ofcom's figures, which pegged …
I am waiting for the stock of Puma based bugware in NTL warehouse to run out. Then, and only then, I am upgrading my 120 (which I hit nearly all the time) to 200.
BT Openreach should really stop asking the Union does it like it with ice cubes or hot coffee and stop fluffing the copper. They probably have not realized that the job of a fluffer has been obsoleted by technology.
"I am waiting for the stock of Puma based bugware in NTL warehouse to run out. Then, and only then, I am upgrading my 120 (which I hit nearly all the time) to 200."
I assume you mean Virgin Media. NTL were bought out many years ago...
A quick check of my quality monitor on Thinkbroadband still shows ongoing packet loss and constant latency peaks of >140ms. So it's not been fixed yet - even though a fix was coming "soon" back in July! Anyone know anything?
Incidentally I have always wondered how they get away with describing their broadband as "fibre broadband"?!. It's delivered to the premises by coax cable.
I tried to make a deal with a policeman once, offered him £50 to not give me a speeding ticket.
That is the problem, you did not wait for his offer. You have to wait until he starts lamenting about how many Euros per hour are you doing above the speed limit.
Fivemiletown is in Ulster. And it is in Northern Ireland. That's OK.
Donegal is in also Ulster, in the bit that is in Republic of Ireland. That's also OK.
I know people love to get offended, but this is more than a bit silly.
Still, the Reg has removed all references to Ulster, so I guess everyone can put away their pitchforks until something else offends us all.
Yep. FTTP is available here, but as FTTP on demand. i.e. £1000 installation, £300 a month fee, if you want service from an ISP who is prepared to offer it. Errm, no thanks, but then again FTTP@330Mbps is apparently Ultrafast, not superfast, so what is 1Gbps, ludicrouslyfast?
> Average speed take-up in the UK is 16.51Mbps, ranking us at 31st in the world.
This could mean "most Brits who have a choice between ASDL and FTTC are too tight-arsed to pay the extra £5-£10 per month for FTTC"
This could mean "most Brits who have a choice between ASDL and FTTC are too tight-arsed to pay the extra £5-£10 per month for FTTC"
And it would be correct. There are plenty of people who can't see any point paying extra for FTTC. And even amongst those who have opted to upgrade most choose the lowest package. The same thing happens with cable. The top tier package has the fewest subscribers. Last I heard even in cable areas BT-based ISPs have the most subscribers. I've not seen figures since 2015 but it says a lot when crappy wet-string copper has more users than coaxial cable where both are available.
The truth is that people who want the fastest possible connection are in the minority. Most people want the cheapest possible connection as long as it's adequate and for most residential properties anything above 30Mb/s is adequate. At the moment.
"... it says a lot when crappy wet-string copper has more users than coaxial cable where both are available."
In my case (outside the UK), I'll take the copper to avoid dealing with the ISP who has a monopoly on cable in my area, and the business ethics of an alley cat.
The truth is that people who want the fastest possible connection are in the minority.
In the same way that people wanting to pay for the fastest possible car are also in the minority ! After all, for many people, some small, low powered car that would struggle to hit 90 is more than adequate to go to the shops in town where the highest speed limit between home and shop sis 30 or perhaps 40 mph.
> So far, I've only had prices from BTB for FTTP on demand. No decent ISP appears to offer it.
Here's an explanation from one very decent ISP:
https://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-FP.html
"Note that there is an option of FTTP on demand shown on availability checkers. This is a service which we are not selling because of the unreasonable costs and terms."
Specifically, the FTTPoD product charges a monthly wholesale rental of £99+VAT - for a service which costs OpenReach *less* to maintain than a copper pair. This means that the retail price of any service based on FTTPoD would need to be at least £150 per month.
This is on top of the high initial connection cost, which means you've already paid for the cost of pulling or digging the fibre into your building.
"Here's an explanation from one very decent ISP:
https://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-FP.html"
But the speed for that service totally sucks. And they charge for amount of data! Standard 40Mb/s down, 10Mb/s up with an option for 80Mb/s down and 20Mbs/ up. Virgin Media already offer circa 300mbps/30mbps...
Article has a link to the coverage report we publish each month.
Fibre on Demand which is what is the name of the 'can pay extra for fibre' does not count towards the statistics, if it did then FTTP figures would be much higher.
The article on thinkbroadband also has a link to a site that shows the data for different areas and is searchable by postcode.
The problem with '100M' is that many websites do not go that fast... :/
Even youtube limits its bandwidth to stop fast guys hogging it away from others!
Fast.com gives me a 'real speed' of about 80M, but speedtests give my 'headline speed' of around 150M..
EG most motorways you can go at 100 MPH, BUT ONLY if there is NO traffic!
with normal traffic, the speed is much less...
"The problem with '100M' is that many websites do not go that fast... :/"
It is not 2001 anymore. There are no servers left with 100Mbps ethernet ports, and if by some miracle some where still operating, replacing them would be cheaper than the electrical operating cost.
Youtube does not limit bandwidth. Due to Google's size, they are everywhere. If they could get you to download more that you already do, they would.
Fast.com is a Netflix tester, and basically stops measuring beyond the speed that Netflix could actually use. On Speedtest I can get speeds of 900+ Mbps, but not on every server as a lot of test servers are still on gigabit ethernet.
After the initial Windows 10 uproar died down, I was able to download the Windows 10 at over 800Mbps peak (took 50 seconds in total). I'm able to get Apple updates at around 500Mbps. It is harder to find something substantial at Google, but Drive is able to do hundreds of Mbps at uploads and downloads.
Lucky you getting those speeds. Out here in AssCrack, eastern North Carolina ('Murica) I'm paying my Cable ISP (TWC/Sputum) for 300MB/Sec and have yet to reach anywhere near those speeds. Bitching about it just results in a tech call followed by a premise visit and a statement that "it looks good to them." One law i DO wish the Donads's Gu'ment would pass is to do away with the cable monopolies in the US. Some healthy competition is in order. But don't see that happening in my lifetime based on the Donald's business friendly stance.
"The problem with '100M' is that many websites do not go that fast... :/"
How fast a single website can is irrelevant. An average family household can easily have a TV streaming 1080p or 4K content, a couple of people messing around on their phones using wifi, and another person on a PC or console gaming, watching Youtube, or whatever. The fact that no single application needs a full 100 Mbps connection does not mean the house as a whole can't make use of it all.
On top of that, there are plenty of services that don't throttle at all. If you want to download a game from Steam, for example, you can do so just as fast as your connection can manage. With games routinely topping 50 GB these days, you're looking at the difference between a few minutes and half an hour or more, and that's assuming you're not in the above house with multiple other people sharing the bandwidth.
"Superfast internet speeds are within reach of nearly 94 per cent of the country, according to figures compiled by Thinkbroadband."
I live in the centre of a town, within walking distance to an exchange. In my street, we can only get Virgin Media and according the neighbours the actual speed is poor.
Openreach FTTC fibre has been coming to my cabinet for 5 years now. Apparently it's in the build phase, according to the checker, so another 5 months before we can order Sky, BT, Plusnet etc... however I reckon it'll never arrive. Even less so for FTTP.
So ThinkBroadband should re-run the survey and only count it if there are 2 or more suppliers in an area. You'd then find how rubbish broadband provision is in the country.
I live 8 miles south of Norwich in a small market town and get 53Mbs, mind you I can look out of my back bedroom window and and can see the local exchange (it i were to toss a stone I could probably hit it).
Maybe I'm lucky but I'm quite happy as you can guess
I have a customer in Feltham - a suburb of London. They get an incredible 500k max. That's it. No FTTC nothing. No cable broadband, so stuck with copper only. BT quoted silly money + first born child to install FTTP. My cousin who lives in a village in Somerset get 20M, for comparison.
So much for good coverage.......
I currently get 6Mb
According to BT sales and openreach I can get 'up to' 35Mb.
Accoring to BT engineers when they come out to work out why my upgrade is running at 2Mb, 35Mb is a bit optimistic as I am 3.2KM from the nearest Cabinet.
So who are these stats coming from? the sales side or the engineering side?
Well according to the BT website when I enter my Postcode, House Number/Name and Land line number:
Fibre broadband8Mb-13Mb Estimated download speed range, 6Mb Lowest assured download speed
Standard broadband1Mb-3.5Mb Estimated download speed range, 512k Lowest assured download speed
I currently get about 7Mb (FTTC) as I am about 2Km from the cabinet
They have upgraded "Up To". Unlimited Broadband - Up to 17Mb, Unlimited Infinity - Up to 52Mb, Unlimited Infinity 2 - Up to 76Mb
@AC
Superfast internet speeds from different suppliers?
...we can only get Virgin Media and according the neighbours the actual speed is poor...
So how do they test their speed (congested WiFi, entrails of a flying pig or a direct connection to the router using an ethernet cable)?
Not strictly, er... true. It is the truth, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If supermarkets tried to sell (say) tins of bean labelled "Contains "up to" 5 x 50 gram servings they would find themselves being pursued by customers and officialdom alike. Ditto pints of beer or litres of petrol.
I suspect that the trouble is that marketeers cannot work in anything that isn't short and snappy, probably based on the assumption that their likely customers can't either*, so putting in any sort of caveat about the limitations in speed that might arise is seen as impractical and pointless.
* They might, of course, be right.
The article (yet again) conflates availability of superfast broadband with takeup of it, so the figures and comparisons with other countries aren't very meaningful. If 94% of the country (by what, area? population?) can have superfast, but the average is 16, does that mean most people don't care, or don't know, or won't pay, or live in the 6%, or what?
The availability and take-up are linked, since if take-up exceeds availability you know your statistics are very wrong.
Over on thinkbroadband we have a micro site with the data on labs dot thinkbroadband dot com slash local.
This covers the availability data and also the observations on speed, where for Q3 2017 median download speed was 19 Mbps, mean 27.6 Mbps.
The UK speed test footprint in Q3 was made up of 37% of tests on ADSL/ADSL2+, 39% on VDSL2, 21% on cable, 1.6% on FTTP and 0.2% on fixed wireless.
Quartile and trends over time are all there.
I do admit its in Exmoor but not that far
Can't you use the old EOP[1] protocol?
[1] Ethernet over ponies[2]. It's a development of the old Sneakernet protocol..
[2] Or, in urban environments, Ethernet over Pidgeons. Uses a much smaller package size, but has a much higher packet rate.
Ofcom should issue "guidance" to the Advertising Standards Agency and the telcoms companies. To the effect, in any advertising:
Up to 30 mbps should be described as "Basic Broadband"
Above 100 mbps should be described as "Premium Broadband"
Above 1 gbps should be described as "Fast Broadband"
I know someone who was obsessed with getting fibre. So they signed up to sky for their 39mbit service. 2 hours later the connection went dead. Cue me running over the connection and checking everything was ok, and more confusion since it was fine. A short phone call to Sky later and a customer fudger on the line said im sorry but you have used up your monthly limit.....
Its not so much the bandwidth but the data transfer that sucks bad. If it was a 1gbit connection it would have died inside 5 minutes...
I suggest you advise your friend to watch pr0n videos at a lower quality to avoid using up the data limit inside 2 hours. He'll say that makes them a bit blurry and you reply that the video is fine, it's that all his frantic masturbation is sending him blind, just like his mother always warned him.
<pedant> I assume you mean 8 Mbps, not actually 8mps?</pedant>
If so then you have way more than enough even for iPlayer HD content, let alone SD.
SD in iPlayer is 1.5 Mbps, it maxes out at 2.8 Mbps for their HD content
Your issue seems to be either a local problem (like poor wifi), or an over subscribed ISP, rather than actual bandwidth per se.
Superfast Broad band is not available to 94% of the country, Fibre to the cabinet is.
These are two entirely different beasts, one is so missed named that Broaband providers should be sued for misrepresentation and false advertising. My FTTC is nether super nor fast at a paltry 13Mbs and less than I got on "slow ADSL" at my previous house (20Mb and much lower latency).
Also in my locality there around 12-15,000 new houses being built, none are being provisioned with FTTC let alone the FTTP that the developers should be obligated to install on all new housing estates.
Broadband was a shambles and still is a shambles, sold to politicians and us using wonky statistics and misselling using their best snake oil hyperbola.
If you want to use snake oil then the figure is 96.8% for premises where anything at any speed using FTTC/Cable/FTTP technologies is available.
Once the distance is taken into account i.e. over 24 Mbps this drops to 94% and if you use a 30 Mbps definition it drops again to 93.6%
The words 'Superfast Broadband' only imply a connection of over 24 Mbps or 30 Mbps and faster depending on if Westminster or Brussels, it carries no technology baggage.
I can get up to 1 MByte/s download speeds with my plain old telephone line broadband quite a lot of the time, and certainly over 400 kByte/s almost all of the time. This is certainly more than enough for me for the occasional software downloads and iPlayer or radio streaming, so I don’t see any personal need to pay any more to have fibre broadband instead.
It’s good to know that faster speeds are available for those that need (or want?) it, and inevitably faster speeds will be needed for everyone if and when 4K video (etc) becomes more common, and obviously we would expect Openreach, etc, to gradually upgrade their network over time, but I genuinely don’t see the seemingly desperate rush for it (pun intended) that seems to be happening just now. I guess it’s better to upgrade the network before it actually becomes a bottleneck, I suppose.
I can't see 1Mb/s cutting it when I want to watch Netflix (preferably in HD, as that's what I'm paying for), and the kids all have YouTube running. Tiered pricing probably makes sense, although I'm all for simplicity and so would quite like to see everyone getting the best possible service for a fair price - I'd be a bit miffed if I switched to a better gas deal and got less calorific gas as a consequence!
Not trolling: I was referring to my actual effective download speed (hence spelling out Byte to make it clear that I really didn’t mean bit).
As I said, I am sure that we will all in time need faster download speeds, but if your usage isn’t exceptionally heavy, plain old ADSL really is perfectly fast enough for me ...for now, and so there’s really no benefit to me in paying more for fibre speeds at present.
We're about 1 mile from the exchange (as the cables run) and are serviced by a "Pillar" (an octagonal concrete thing that contains all the telephone interconnects for the village - apparently they are quite rare nowadays).
Openreach deem us to be "Exchange Only" - so we get 6Mbs at best and no prospect of fibre. They talk about "putting a cabinet at the exchange" - but at a mile away, VDSL wouldn't give any better speed than ADSL2+ does so that's pointless.. They need a better solution!
Maybe if they connected one of the fibres that goes through the underground cabinet to a box on the surface connected to our pillar... But that's just a dream
I'm sure we're not alone on XO lines and I'd like to know if any of the much touted government money is going to actually help us - though I doubt it as I expect its already been trousered...
In tracking the coverage we do see plenty of areas that were EO getting the VDSL2 cabinet installed, and yes invariably in the initial wave they are just outside the exchange, but the pattern does vary.
A lot depends on the actual area and existing cable bundles
If you at 1 mile from exchange is JUST you, then unlikely to see a closer infill VDSL2 cabinet, but if you is a cluster of 50 homes at 1 mile from the exchange you may do. A lot depends on the actual area i.e. what stage of the roll-out they are at and the economics to add a cabinet for you. The more people it would help the better generally.
The MP Grant Shapps, who when not collecting a list of anti-Theresa May MPs, is doing a sterling job of highlighting these BT / Fast Broadband lies, explained that even if only some of the people in a location are connected then that counts as 100% receiving the fast service.
I'm in the Thames Valley, fast biroadband cabinet around the corner is full, so our street can't get it, but statistics say 100% availability in our area. That's how these UK numbers look so good but it's not just remote Irish villages that in reality aren't connected
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
