FTTP saturation: Western Europe broadband speeds plateau

[HEXUS]

And Jersey claims the fastest mean download speeds in the world at 274Mbps.

Read more.

[Friesiansam]

That some of the poorest countries in the EU, have significantly higher average broadband speeds than us, speaks volumes for the Tories failure since 2010, to live up to their promises of fast broadband for all and, for the complete nonsense that is Bozo's "levelling up" policy.

[KultiVator]

That some of the poorest countries in the EU, have significantly higher average broadband speeds than us, speaks volumes for the Tories failure since 2010, to live up to their promises of fast broadband for all and, for the complete nonsense that is Bozo's "levelling up" policy.

In the UK we're just way too laid back (or weary of BS) regarding politicians failed attempts to keep their promises... we should maybe take a leaf out of the French playbook and burn sheep in the streets - weird hobby, but if it works, who are we to knock it?

[Caimbeul2000]

Slower than the vatican...

[maxopus]

Slower than the vatican...

The pope hates his porn to buffer.

[Gentle Viking]

The only reason Denmark dont do better, is some are cheap bastards that will "settle" on a moderate speed, i know a guy that have 30/30 mbit on fiber, for next to nothing more he could get gigabit.
Okay i also sort of understand the guy, he really dont do much on the internet, he even still get his TV via antenna.
It do however seem like the ISP that offered 5/5 gbit speeds, well they are gone / changed name, and get massive bad ratings.
That is too bad i was hoping for 5/5 gbit when i get new apartment and get back on fiber again, i just hate my 1000 / 100 mbit connection, or at least the 100 part of it.

I think it is about 9 years since my DL speed have been under 300 mbit, it have been gigabit for at least 7 years.

[Iota]

In the UK we're just way too laid back (or weary of BS) regarding politicians failed attempts to keep their promises...

Nothing to do with politicians in reality, they just spout sound bites to make themselves look good, with very little understanding. They just like to throw money at problems, without any form of guarantee that it'll produce the right results.

No, this is to do with capitalism failing. Shareholders, got to keep those profit margins. Right?

I think it is about 9 years since my DL speed have been under 300 mbit, it have been gigabit for at least 7 years.

I miss having a semi decent broadband speed, 300 would be lovely. I get about 30, 20% of what I had 6 years ago.

[gagaga]

That some of the poorest countries in the EU, have significantly higher average broadband speeds than us, speaks volumes for the Tories failure since 2010, to live up to their promises of fast broadband for all and, for the complete nonsense that is Bozo's "levelling up" policy.

Pretty sure if those EU countries had paid for our broadband like we paid to renew their infrastructure, then we'd have lovely all-over fibre too. UK consumers are also tight fisted - they pay the absolute minimum for many of these services, then complain endlessly about not getting the level of service they seem to think they deserve. Add to that the much higher proportion of the UK population in single houses (vs appartment blocks that are easy to run fibre to), and the general age of much of the infrastructure and street furniture and there's plenty to explain how it is.
(one example - the cable companies NTL/Telewest were forced to bury their cables in trenches rather than being able to use poles similar to BT. That multiplied the cost per street by multiples).

[Gentle Viking]

The fiber roll out here started after electrical companies had been illegal overcharging for a long long time, so they got the offer to choose ( by politicians ) to either pay back the money or to use them to put fiber cables in the ground ( often way out in the country, actually most larger cities here still do not have fiber )

So of course they choose to put the billions of DKkr they had stolen to put fiber in the ground, and so sort of keep their loot.
So i am not sure if you can say it was private funded or government funded, stolen money or tax money that is pretty much the same.
I think within this Decade all Danes bust be able to have at least

Here is a map of fiber cable saturation in my country, green = 100 % red = 2 cans and a string internet,,,,, well sort off.
Get a bit more nuanced when zoomed in, but in general its okay.


You can go on street view and "drive" thru little towns, look for a white / light grey box low on house walls looking like this.
https://www.google.com/maps/@56.3056...7i16384!8i8192

There is also 4 nationwide 4G networks and i think that will be the same for 5G too in a few years.

[Hoonigan]

Just goes to show how much money was wasted on FTTC that's now obsolete. We should've just done it properly from the start.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just goes to show how much money was wasted on FTTC that's now obsolete. We should've just done it properly from the start.

I have been saying for years on here,it has become "quick buck Britain" where everything is done in the most penny-pinching shortsighted way to maximise profits,and then we spend even more money trying to fix it in the longterm.

[cheesemp]

Just goes to show how much money was wasted on FTTC that's now obsolete. We should've just done it properly from the start.

100%. However its Gfast that's really crazy - An expensive rollout that helped no one but the odd house almost on top of the cabinet!

My little town is still waiting for any options other than FTTC and gfast. We're not on any of the currently FTTP rollout plans so I don't see us getting it this side of 2025. Its annoying as we got FTTC fairly early. I blame the fact the town has large estates from the 70s with ducted lines rather than telegraph poles. Its a lot more expensive to clear 50 year old ducting rather than string a fibre between pre-existing poles.

[Unique]

"poorer" countries could have faster mean average as if they are poor they may have less of the population with broadband, so the poor don't and the well off do, and that affects the results

plus, many people are fine with having a slower speed at a lower price. as long as the internet does what they want, not everyone wants or needs gigabit speeds. if they can watch netflix ok and shop online and play with socialmedia, that's what interests a lot. why pay £5 more a month to go from 50gb to 1GB if you aren't going to notice it. you may notice the £60 a year more

[gagaga]

I have been saying for years on here,it has become "quick buck Britain" where everything is done in the most penny-pinching shortsighted way to maximise profits,and then we spend even more money trying to fix it in the longterm.

There was no* demand for fibre internet 10 years ago, so how would you have persuaded someone on an £18/month ADSL line to pony up £60-100 a month for fibre? The build-out costs are eye-watering. It's happening now because there is billions in governm<<< taxpayer money sloshing around, the technology is much cheaper and demand much, much higher to make it viable. That was not the case a decade ago.

FTTC has been around for a decade now, that is a good stint for a technology.

There has been some really stupid shortcoming - estates of houses and blocks of flats built in the past decade with BT lines instead of all fibre being one of them, and councils renewing pavements etc not linking up with the telecoms companies to put in a new trench and share the cost of the dig for the work (example: Barnet council in London replaced my entire street with brick paving. 4 weeks later Virgin came along, dug up the pristine pavements to lay a trench and filled in the top with a wonky snake of tarmac).

Many are still not bothered about fibre. A friend was switched over to FTTP by BT because her VDSL was so unreliable. She's getting 38mb because that's the service she paid for and is happy with.

*outside geeks like us.

[gagaga]

plus, many people are fine with having a slower speed at a lower price. as long as the internet does what they want, not everyone wants or needs gigabit speeds. if they can watch netflix ok and shop online and play with socialmedia, that's what interests a lot. why pay £5 more a month to go from 50gb to 1GB if you aren't going to notice it. you may notice the £60 a year more

This, exactly this. Most devices will struggle to saturate a 60mb line if you're not sat in the same room as the router because the wifi can't do more. Very few people have cabled devices, even those like the TV/digibox sat next to the wifi router.

[cheesemp]

"poorer" countries could have faster mean average as if they are poor they may have less of the population with broadband, so the poor don't and the well off do, and that affects the results

plus, many people are fine with having a slower speed at a lower price. as long as the internet does what they want, not everyone wants or needs gigabit speeds. if they can watch netflix ok and shop online and play with socialmedia, that's what interests a lot. why pay £5 more a month to go from 50gb to 1GB if you aren't going to notice it. you may notice the £60 a year more

I think you are being a little judgemental. I work with a lot of Ukrainian's (and more recently Indian's) and they all have decent 100Mb+ connections way cheaper than I pay for crappy 30mb FTTC. While eastern Europe has lower standards of living than the UK they are fast catching up and decent cheap internet has helped significantly with that. (They also have invested in getting highly educated work force - we just can't get enough Brits to do software development/IT)

As for your second point - sure you can survive with 50Mb nowadays but anyone working for home would benefit from a more stable faster connection - its not like we couldn't easily have had them had anyone had any vision in government or BT 15 years ago. We're behind and while we're starting to improve we're still not competitive.