The superfast broadband roll-outs have polarised opinions and where as with previous ADSL roll-outs things started to quieten down once coverage got above 80% the volume of complaints about not rolling out fast enough or the wrong choice of technology for an area appears to be actually increasing for the roll-out of superfast speeds. So we thought given that our figures show the UK hitting 90% overall we would share some of our data on how the roll-out has or has not changed things for rural areas of the UK.

Before we share any actual coverage figures, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) data is usually quoted as 78% to 80% of the UK being classified as urban and the remainder being rural. We have used the ONS classification of census output areas to arrive at the results in this blog and a very important graphic is the one illustrating the distribution of premises. Also in this blog where we talk about superfast we are using the stricter EU 30 Mbps and faster definition.

Distribution UK Premises by ONS Classification

Of course for anyone reading this where the commercial or BDUK roll-outs have not helped them the figures will seem irrelevant and incredibly inaccurate, but in an arena where emotion rather than data seems to rule we are working hard to get more data into the public domain and at a pace that means decision makers can very quickly see the results.

So what has changed? It turns out an awful lot, back in December 2010 the commercial roll-out from Openreach was just a year old and thus the majority of the coverage was down to Virgin Media cable, but even so 15.5% of rural Great Britain had a superfast option, trailing GB Urban by a large margin with its 66.1% coverage. 2010 was a pivotal year as the initial funding for the BDUK project was announced and a range of speeches made about UK broadband targets, some of which people are convinced promised to deal with the worst 10% rather than what has happened which is that the roll-outs have expanded from the edges of the commercial roll-out (largely). Also in earlier versions of BDUK websites the BDUK project was often called a rural broadband project and still tends to be accompanied in the press by pictures of sheep in a field, or a lone person with a laptop in a wheat field.

Rural Urban Superfast Coverage December 2010The progress over the next few years is illustrated by the following sequence of bar charts, ending with the current levels of coverage for April 2016.

Rural/Urban Superfast Coverage December 2011Superfast Coverage in Rural/Urban Areas December 2012Rural/Urban Superfast Coverage December 2013

Rural/Urban Superfast Coverage December 2014

Split of Superfast Broadband Coverage in Rural and Urban parts of the UK

Figures from 9th April 2016

So the rural chunk of the UK representing 23% of UK premises in 6 years has gone from 15.5% superfast coverage to 72% rural coverage, which seems pretty good progress unless you are still waiting. The level of urban coverage has not remained static rising from 66.1% to 95.3% as there has been years of commercially funded roll-out too and in places like London there is a new surge of cabinets going live, plus some commercial cabinets put on hold to concentrate on BDUK work in other parts of the UK are also going live at last.

A major criticism of the BDUK roll-out has been that VDSL2 does not deliver enough performance in rural areas, and we plan to look at this in a lot more depth with an analysis of speed test results, that will go beyond the usual decile, quartile, median and mean speeds, but look at the speeds people are recording at various distances from the cabinet. We have done some small reviews for rural cabinet areas and so far from the limited sampling the  speed vs distance model used in our coverage estimates does stand up to scrutiny, but we will automate this analysis so we can compare much larger numbers than is possible by hand. For now the quick method is to remove the superfast speed qualifier and see what difference that makes.

VDSL2, cable, FTTP coverage April 2016

So here is the evidence, of how badly or not VDSL2 performs in rural areas, 84.3% have something ‘fibre’ based available to them, but this drops to 72% once you use a 30 Mbps qualifier. For urban areas the drop is much smaller 96.2% down to 95.3%, this is down to cabinets being more densely packed. So yes in rural areas more people do not get superfast broadband when a cabinet is given VDSL2 but it is a long way from being as bad as we have seen some say who claim no one gets superfast broadband from VDSL2 in rural areas. For BDUK gap-funded cabinets many projects only pay the gap-funding based on the number of premises that will get superfast so deploying a technology which receives zero subsidy would make no sense at all. Of course if you’re one of those who has seen a cabinet go live and are unable to order due to distance one can understand the complaint.

It will be interesting to see how things continue to change in the next 18 months or so, and with many of the phase 1 BDUK projects working on infill as well as the extension projects we are seeing increasing amounts of FTTP deployed, so the availability of FTTP in rural areas may increase further, making it proportionally a better place to search for a property with FTTP if you are able to re-locate.

Current Openreach and KC FTTP footprint

In absolute numbers of premises the GB Urban footprint does have more FTTP available to it, but hamlets where the surrounding area is sparsely populated are where you are most likely to find incumbent based FTTP.

The UK broadband scene has moved on rapidly and many campaigners are now saying superfast is passé so we will end on showing you what the current ultrafast picture looks like. We are using a 100 Mbps definition here, but that could just as easily be 200 Mbps since all the services meet that definition, Ofcom has elected for a 300 Mbps definition, but even there with 300 Mbps available to people who pester Virgin Media appropriately we can continue to include cable services.

Ultrafast Broadband in the UK April 2016

The question for campaigners and politicians are seeking answers to is whether  there is an actual need to spend public money on a subsidised roll-out of ultrafast broadband, or are services such as downloading digital games in minutes rather than hours and ultra HD streaming so critical to the UK economy that we cannot wait? Where this probably matters most is the final 5% of the UK and how the Universal Service Obligation works, i.e. will technologies be deployed that just about meet the 10 Mbps target on a good day.

Update 20th April 2016

To help give people a better idea of the scale of any future work to increase superfast coverage and what has been done, in terms of the number of premises in Great Britain (Northern Ireland left out as ONS rural/urban definitions do not directly map. In Great Britain, the number of urban premises without access to superfast broadband (using the faster than 24 Mbps definition) has decreased from 3.85m at the end of 2012 to 0.94 million currently, in the rural part of the UK the change is 4.95m down to the current 1.72 million.

Tags: ,

15 Responses


  1. Emma Evans on 11 Apr 2016

    Surely public money should be spent on getting everyone to a reasonable level of service before worrying about ultrafast which is a luxury not a necessity. Superfast may be passé in densely populated areas but for many people 10Mbps on a good day is an unimaginably lofty aim as we struggle by on less than 2Mbps.

  2. Alistair Webb on 12 Apr 2016

    Bravo Emma Evans! Absolutely spot on.

    If politicians (who decide where to pressure networks to invest), do not finally realise they have to get affordable, usable broadband to EVERY premise they will literally throttle our rural economy.

    Take a – “Good Enough” approach, not just more is better.

    For whom? To what end?

  3. Simon B on 12 Apr 2016

    Additionally the Government will need to consider their own actions in determining the need for a particular bandwidth model.

    The wholesale move of many government supplied services to a wholly web based provision and removing face to face or phone options force people online and a number of self help appear to be video based as an example.

    To this end there will be a minimum bandwidth requirement to actually be able to consume these services in the near future, which must then be provided or rural dwellers will be disenfranchised entirely which must be unacceptable

  4. chris conder on 12 Apr 2016

    Purely and simply, we need competition. The cities would still be on dial up if we didn’t have Virgin competing. The same in rural areas. We need alternative networks. BT will make sure that their satellite partners provide the USC/O in the hard to reach areas via connection vouchers, which means that after harvesting the low hanging semi urban fruit with their obsolete copper cabinets they break the business case for altnets. It is all an amazingly well organised superfarce. Keeping us tied to old phone lines for another decade at least. There is absolutely no point in swanking about upto 30Mbps when the world is moving on to real fibre and gigabit connections. Good enough is never good enough. We are going to end up a third world digital nation if we keep believing the hype and the ‘statistics’. Gfarce is the next technology which will be strung up on old poles, and together with expensive satellites will give them another heap of statistics to baffle our silly old politicians with.

  5. JT on 18 Apr 2016

    Until we move away from the ‘commercially viable’ requirement and move it to a fundamental requirement (i.e. utility) then we will fail to hit the final 5% in a comprehensive way

  6. pumadriver on 20 Apr 2016

    I agree with everything said so far. Of course, leaving rural areas without access to broadband (and it doesn’t stop there does it? …access to transport, to health facilities, etc.) results in fewer complaints simply because the population is smaller. Forget the fact that rural dwellers have the same costs (and often more, eg fuel costs, broadband speeds that are not achieved. ) and pay the same taxes as urban dwellers, we just do not have the same demographic clout.

  7. Rajendra on 22 Apr 2016

    Leaving rural areas without broadband will lack the communication and connectivity

  8. Jon Watts on 25 Apr 2016

    The main problem for me is the term ‘coverage’. What I’d like to see instead is ‘actual’ upload and download speeds achieved from these covered premises.

    I live in a house that is covered by ‘Superfast’ so is supposedly capable of receiving speeds of up to an advertised 38Mbps and I pay for a Fibre product but only achieve actual speeds of between 15Mbps to 20Mbps, that’s not even Superfast according to the definition.

    I also think that having a range of 24/25Mbps to 80Mbps for Superfast is misleading.

    It sounds like the majority of people are therefore capable of achieving speeds up to 80Mbps, I expect the reality is a lot different.

  9. Sandra Dillon on 03 May 2016

    In Peggs Green, Coleorton, we are able to get fibre courtesey of Superfast Leicestershire BDUK. However we’re so far from the fibre-enabled cabinet we are quoted a top speed of 12Mbps so hardly superfast, and not worth going to the hassle to upgrade from 5Mbps we get on ADSL. I guess we will go to fibre eventually as the ADSL performance is actually getting worse – more people using it for streaming TV and music – or a policy for downgrading ADSL – who knows?

  10. Gordon Hughes on 04 May 2016

    This is a variant on “How to Lie with Statistics”. Look at the definition of “Rural” in the ONS Geography – anything that is not “Urban”, i.e. not part of a settlement with a population of 10,000. So, a town of 8,000 is treated as rural in these figures. Most of us would regard that as entirely different from what we think of as rural.

    Personally, I wouldn’t regard anything other than Hamlet (sparse / less sparse) as really rural. Maybe we might include Village but the ONS isn’t clear about what this covers. Focusing on the Hamlet category, the coverage has gone from 7% to 36-41%. Clearly an improvement, but a long way to go and by far the most expensive to cover.

  11. David Bowen on 05 May 2016

    I find all these discussions depressing …38Mbps …24Mbps …only 15Mbps to 20Mbps! Luxury (in a Yorkshire accent)
    Having waited in anticipation for three years we finally got Fibre to cabinet last year. That was when the cabinet location was revealed – 0.2metres from the exchange. Most of us are miles away from the exchange. I am 4.2metres away! What a waste of time and effort. I am now included in the Superfast Worcestshire statistics as “Superfast enabled” and included in the “poor takeup” figures . I agree with previous comment – “ultrafast is a luxury not a necessity”.
    Meanwhile website design is becoming increasingly inefficient (and hence slow) and my 1Mbps is being left “high and dry” with no hope for the future, since I am already covered according to the statistics!

  12. J A Hill on 07 May 2016

    Letting private industry cream off the most profitable jobs first will always make the remaining jobs dis-proportionally expensive. Suppose the postman only delivered to the 95% houses nearest to the town centre. How much would it cost to deliver later in the day to the remaining 5%? It must have been just such a scenario which led to the nationalisation of utilities in the past. If BT had known from the outset that delivering broadband would be to all premises at a fixed price they would have had a totally different approach to planning the current distribution. What we have now achieved is the fastest and cheapest way to get broadband to most people. So well and good. Now we realise that’s not what we needed. We all agree that we don’t want businesses outside major towns to close down or for rural dwellers to have serious problems with everyday living. When ever anyone states these rather over-obvious facts we get some silly irrelevant reply about unbelievably fast broadband for the top 5%.

  13. Michael Chare on 19 May 2016

    I would like to see FTTP made available to the 4% or so who are to far from their cabinets to get a reasonable speed by FTTC.

    I have such a service, it costs just under £40pm + £2 per month for my landline number ported to VOIP. I quite often run speed tests that show more than 500Mbps.

    In this day of ubiquitous mobile I think the requirement for land line battery backup should be dropped.

  14. NGA for all on 01 Jun 2016

    It might be informative to add the structures and costs added so far, and it shows the potential for FTTP in the final 5%-10% and in-fill.
    For BT commercial Ofcom/Cartesian are reporting 51,000 cabinets.
    For BDUK, Cornwall, Northern Ireland it looks to be c23,500 cabinets.
    BT reported costs of £26k per fibre path to the CMS select committee for phase 1.
    They also claim capital payments of £276m and capital owned to BDUK/LA of £258m. If you combine these two, it would suggest little subsidy was needed so far, so the £1bn + will available for what’s left.

  15. Wizzyone on 19 Jul 2016

    I have been reading the various comments and if only we could complain about a poor speed of 10Mbps! We live in a hamlet in Hampshire and struggle to reach the legal requirements for the most basic of internet service…this is despite us paying the same amount per month that other users who are getting speeds of 10Mbps, 20 or higher…it seems grossly unfair.


Leave your comment