Home / News / Peripheral News / BT to Offer 110Mbps Broadband Next Year

BT to Offer 110Mbps Broadband Next Year

by

BT to Offer 110Mbps Broadband Next Year

The UK could look forward to shooting up the broadband speed charts as BT reveals plans to offer customers 110Mbps fibre optic broadband next year.

BT Openreach, the company that manages the BT network, has announced plans to make fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) broadband available to ISPs on the network. The service is planned to go live in March 2011.

However, the full fat 110Mbps download speeds will only be available at peak times, and will be capped to 20Mbps at other times. Upload speeds are given as 15Mbps.

The service will cost other ISPs £258 which equates to £21.54 a month, though at this point we can only guess what the ISP’s will charge consumers.

If, as we are, you’re wondering why the headline speed is 110Mbps, and not 100Mbps, then we must assume that’s it’s primarily for marketing purposes. Virgin Media, which currently offers a 50Mbps as its fastest speed, has announced plans for a 100Mbps service. However, Virgin’s service will be more widely available that BT’s at launch.

Martin Leventon

October 21, 2010, 7:53 pm

No doubt it will never come to my part of the UK, we seem to be left behind big time. I would rather there be a consistent speed in the country rather than some areas getting far better service than others.

nocomment

October 21, 2010, 7:55 pm

A complete waste of time if the usual caps (sorry fair usage guidelines) apply.





The limit will just be reached in the first five minutes.

Kieran

October 21, 2010, 9:49 pm

Oh great,,, another way for the government to gloat about our national average internet speed despite the fact most peoples speeds are garbage.





99people with 512kb internet, and 1 person with 200mb means the average is 2mb......





Now this will just make the national average a little higher but wont help the majority of people. This will only happen in high populated areas neglecting the areas with a sparser population.

Andy0d2

October 21, 2010, 10:04 pm

BT should focus on narrowing the digital gap not making it wider.

simonm

October 21, 2010, 11:36 pm

Good to see a measure of consensus in the comments - BT's priority should not be giving 110Mbps to users with 20Mbps but ensuring everyone can get a basic level of service that enables them to use iPlayer, Skype, etc.





Folk are getting left behind due to factors outside their control (unless you consider moving house for better broadband reasonable, but it seems a little extreme to me).

Runwaypimp

October 21, 2010, 11:38 pm

I wish they would offer larger data usage. 200Gbs/month is more like it.


More speed is pointless if with their stone-age fair usage policy.

paul

October 22, 2010, 3:54 am

virgin advertise unlimited which should really say unlimited until you reach your daily limit.


i remember i joined virgin and at the same time i bought a new graphics card which had dirt 2 as a free game which had to be downloaded with a code that came with the card.


After i had downloaded dirt 2 i noticed my speed had dropped to 2.5m when i was on 10mb,i started to read through their unfair usage policy and it said if you go over a certain amount your speed will be reduce to 2.5M for five hours,so that means you cant even download one full game without going over YOUR limit,i think they should be more clear in their advertising and tell people straight you cant download a full game without going over you limit so its nowhere near "unlimited" as they claim,lucky i was in my 28 days cooling off period and cancelled straight away.

Borisl

October 22, 2010, 12:50 pm

Another meaningless announcement from BT. I contacted them regarding BTInfinity a few days ago and they can't tell me still when it will be rolled out in my area, or even if it will be. I live in an area not covered by Virgin Media either so I guess I will be stuck in the slow lane with the rest of the third world countries for the foreseeable future. Utter nonsense

MrHorizontal

October 22, 2010, 12:50 pm

£258/year is one thing (which should lead to around £40/mth ISP bills for 100mbps broadband - fine by me). But more importantly, what's the installation fee to install FTTP?

simonm

October 22, 2010, 2:12 pm

To those complaining about usage limits:





If you want unlimited usage without throttling it's readily available.





Search for "internet leased line".





Pricing about £400/month for 8Mbps: http://www.easynetconnect.net/...





If you're paying instead £40/month it's because you're sharing with other users, hence "fair usage".





I understand that there are residential internet providers who advertise no throttling, but their business model will fail if every user exploits this to the full as a truly unlimited service is - as above - much more expensive to provide.

Jmac

October 22, 2010, 2:32 pm

Wait, full speed is available only during *peak* times, and throttled at other (i.e. *off-peak*) times? Is that right? Surely the other way around?!

Fleabane

October 22, 2010, 2:47 pm

That will be up to 110Mbps then, or meaningless as it's otherwise known. Still, in real life it means that things are improving, I'm still impressed they manage to send TV signals down twisted bits of aluminium.

ThaDon

October 22, 2010, 3:00 pm

@ John McLean - i think they're looking to fatten the pipe during peak usage times so users don't notice a massive degradation at that time. It does however fully exploit the 'up to' speed slogan to the fullest - i think it should read 20Mbps, with 110Mbps Peak Time Burst...

J4cK1505

October 22, 2010, 6:37 pm

Theres just so much wrong with this move.. BT need to stop chasing headlines and make real use faster for the majority. Thats their main market.

Xiphias

October 23, 2010, 12:57 am

@simonm: Well you don't go for a leased line if all you want is no download caps, there are plenty of ISPs offering unlimited packages over ADSL for ~£70 a month.





But you're somewhat missing the point. If you're a heavy user and need an unlimited package then yes, you should expect to pay a lot of money for it, but the problem is that if you're a moderate user and only use a couple of hundred gigabytes a month then it's very difficult to separate out the packages that would suit you from the sham ISPs claiming unlimited and then imposing a limit of just a few dozen gigabytes or even less!

Terry 10

October 23, 2010, 11:58 am

Please define the term 'widely available'. It seems that anything available to more than a dozen users is 'widely available'. The useless QUANGO should have made it compulsory for cable providers to cover a significant percentage of users when they sold off licenses instead of letting them cherry-pick the prime density areas.





It is no good Virgin/Orange/Sky shouting about their broadband speeds when only a dismal percentage of the country can get it with no plans to significantly extend cable networks. All they seem to offer is ever faster speeds for existing areas.

simonm

October 23, 2010, 3:26 pm

@Xiphias - To my mind, there's a fairly clear point, and it's not me that's missing it. That is: provision of a genuinely unlimited service is demonstrably expensive, and we pay a small fraction of this cost for our broadband because we're getting a shared service.





I did acknowledge there are ISPs with unlimited/unthrottled packages, but again: if everyone hammers these connections then either the service is degraded, or maintaining the service becomes uneconomic. For instance, I notice Virgin was previously advertising no throttling on their XXL package but they've evidently picked up a lot of heavy users and have recently changed this policy (for uploads only at the moment, presumably targeting P2P): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...





You get what you pay for, and there's a reason dedicated lines cost £400/month. I don't see that as a particularly controversial statement - I'm more surprised people think that for a tenth this cost they should be able to continually soak shared broadband when they are in 50:1 contention with their neighbours.





But I'm not sure to what extent we actually disagree. You acknowledge that heavy users should have to pay their way, so it just hinges on how you define 'moderate' use, and I didn't attempt to define that.





I also share your irritation that ISPs are not upfront about their service levels, some being notionally 'unlimited' when it turns out they throttle after you hit an undisclosed fair usage cap.

comments powered by Disqus