We’ve been waiting for years for true “superfast” fibre-optic broadband, but now it’s here it seems few people actually want it. At least, that’s the impression given by Ofcom chief Ed Richards’ comments earlier this week, when he said superfast (24Mbits/sec+) broadband uptake was “still low” and largely confined to families with teenage children.

How low is “low”? We asked BT for its latest fibre figures. More than six million premises now have access to BT’s fibre lines, but only 300,000 customers have actually signed up for the service. That’s a less than impressive sounding conversion rate of 5%.

It’s even less impressive when you consider that BT Infinity fibre costs no more than the company’s most expensive ADSL package, and that the company admits to “really going for it” in terms of marketing fibre to customers. People are being offered an effectively free speed upgrade and many seemingly don’t want it.

Why can’t Britain’s two biggest broadband providers tempt more people to upgrade to the superfast speeds?

In BT’s defence, its conversion rate is much higher than this time last year, when the company had signed up only 38,000 out of three million fibre-enabled households, a success ratio of only 1.5%. And its chief rival is doing no better. Virgin Media’s Q3 financial report reveals that eight million homes now have access to its 100Mbits/sec service, but only 187,000 of its customers are on 50Mbits/sec or 100Mbits/sec lines – a conversion ratio of only 2.3%.

Reasons for refusing fibre

So what’s going wrong? Why can’t Britain’s two biggest broadband providers tempt more people to upgrade to the superfast speeds?

There could certainly be an element of once bitten twice shy. For years, broadband providers have over-egged their advertised broadband speeds with the largely fictional “up to” speeds. According to Ofcom’s latest fixed-line research, the UK’s actual average broadband speed is 6.8Mbits/sec, but the average advertised speed is 15Mbits/sec. The broadband providers have only themselves – and the ever-pliant Advertising Standards Authority – to blame if nobody now believes their speed claims.

Price is clearly a major factor, too. Virgin’s 100Mbits/sec service costs £35 a month (when taken with a Virgin phone line), but its cheapest 10Mbits/sec package costs only £13.50 – almost a third of the price. And while BT does indeed match the price of its top-end ADSL and fibre packages, you can get BT’s up to 20Mbits/sec ADSL for as little as £13 (plus line rental), compared to the minimum £28 per month outlay for fibre. When the whole country’s looking after the pennies, people need a pretty good reason to upgrade.

And what is that reason? Remember that, to date, fibre has largely been rolled out in inner-city areas, places that already had fairly decent ADSL speeds. For the average consumer (who is far less demanding of their broadband than the average PC Pro reader), there are few apps or services that would run a great deal more smoothly on a 40/50/100Mbits/sec line than they would on a 10 or 20Mbits/sec ADSL connection.  Unless you’re downloading multiple HD video streams – as you might in Ed Richards’ stereotypical teenage family – there is currently no compelling reason for the man in the street to upgrade.

The people who would surely jump at the chance of a fibre speeds are those in rural areas, smaller towns or on the edge of exchanges, for whom the jump from only 1 or 2Mbits/sec – or even slower – to 40Mbits/sec and beyond would be truly life changing. A point that was reportedly made by senior telco execs at a recent conference in Denmark. But, of course, they’re harder and more expensive to reach.

But with BT admitting its business case was based on 20% of broadband customers making the jump to fibre at this week’s Westminster eForum – four times its current conversion ratio – you can’t help but wonder whether it may regret taking the soft option first.

T-Mobile was sent to the headmaster’s office for describing its smartphone data contracts as “truly unlimited”, even though it barred services such as tethering, VoIP and P2P.

That was beyond the pale, according to the advertising overlord, which delivered the following guidance in its adjudication:

“The ASA considered that ‘Truly Unlimited Internet’ was a very strong claim, and went beyond a typical ‘unlimited’ internet claim, which we considered consumers understood would be likely to be subject to some limitations such as a FUP [fair-use policy].”

So, just so we’re clear: according to the ASA, consumers expect “unlimited” services to be limited.

You truly couldn’t make it up.

Put yourself in the shoes of Broadband Delivery UK – the Government body charged with making Britain’s internet network go whoosh. Well, more pffft when you consider the pathetically lowly target of universal 2Mbits/sec connections by 2015.

You’ve got only £362 million of funding to kickstart fibre broadband projects, which in relative terms is like walking into a Porsche showroom with £1,000 in cash and hoping to drive away in a new 911.

You’ve essentially got two choices: hand that money to the big boys such as BT and Virgin Media (via local councils) in the hope that it will prompt them to extend their fibre footprint to areas that wouldn’t otherwise stack up financially; or, pump the cash into a local fibre project.

Both options have their pitfalls. Handing public money to hugely profitable corporates sticks in the craw – especially BT, which inherited a public network in which it has (arguably) failed to make sufficient investment over the years. On the other hand, dishing out money to local projects risks creating what TalkTalk’s chief executive, Dido Harding, calls a “patchwork quilt of different networks” in today’s Times.

You’ve got only £362 million of funding to kickstart fibre broadband projects, which in relative terms is like walking into a Porsche showroom with £1,000 in cash and hoping to drive away in a new 911

She has a point. About 10 years ago, Kingston Communications was the poster child for devolved, local broadband projects. The Kingston upon Hull-based provider, by quirk or regulation, holds a monopoly in the area, but few complained when Hull was benefiting from some of the fastest ADSL services in the country and pioneering services such as video on demand. A decade on, Hull’s residents are crying out for competition after being left trailing on sluggish ADSL2+ technology, while other large towns and cities are being connected to fibre.

Other regional projects have fallen by the wayside, with both BT and TalkTalk pointing to the Digital Region scheme in Sheffield, which has reportedly benefited from £90 million of public money. “They have put a lot of money in and haven’t yet got a service,” Harding complains in The Times. “There is no commercial proposition there.” Another local scheme in Suffolk closed after five years because local volunteers tired of clambering up church towers to fix the wireless antennae, the newspaper claims.

Regional projects obviously don’t benefit from the economies of scale afforded to the likes of BT, Virgin and TalkTalk. And even when they make a credible business case, the big boys can throw an almighty spanner in the works. An industry insider told me recently that, after losing the tender to supply fibre for a local council, BT swiftly changed its fibre rollout plans to include that very area, immediately undermining the business case of the winning bidder.

So it’s taxpayers’ money for private companies; or a “patchwork” network that risks swiftly falling behind the times when the money or the enthusiasm runs out. It’s not an appealing choice, is it?

Many people living in the countryside, constantly bombarded for adverts for 100Mbits/sec broadband, are sick to the back teeth of the promised benefits of “next-generation access” that has attracted massive funding from the private sector, and a rather more modest £530m from the Government.

There’s nothing worse than when something that you can’t have is flaunted in your face, especially for the ruralites without access to any broadband at all or a connection that is “broad” only in name.

Town dwellers, on the other hand, see no reason why they should subsidise people that choose to live in the sticks. There have been numerous posts on PC Pro forums taking the stance that people that live in the countryside should just accept slow broadband as part of the balance for all the good things of a quieter life.

City folk talk of nice views, quaint village schools and lower crime rates in the countryside, painting life beyond the suburbs as some sort of idyll, one long harvest festival hosted by the Women’s Institute. Sadly, perhaps, that’s a country mile wide of the mark, and a case of the grass being greener. There are just as many problems in the countryside as anywhere else, only with greater distances to the nearest decent kebab house.

The argument also misses the fact that millions don’t “choose” to live in a broadband backwater

The argument also misses the fact that millions don’t “choose” to live in a broadband backwater – they were born there or moved there before the internet became the centre of the universe, before we knew that bandwidth would impact the saleability and rental value of properties with narrowband performance.

Given that country services — such as Post Offices and shops — are regularly being shut down as not cost-effective and that the nearest supermarket might be miles away, it’s easy to argue that the provinces need broadband more, not less, than urban areas. But whether real improvements in the current disparity will ever happen remains a moot point.

Broadband bonanza?

Yesterday’s allocation of £363 million in funding for rural broadband might sound like a bonanza, but it’s unclear where and how it will be spent, or who will really benefit.

As the projects are still fledgling, no-one knows whether the funds will go towards a general improvement in services for more developed rural areas – potentially bringing them up to 25Mbits/sec that the government targets as next-generation access speeds – or towards the digitally deprived that have no service or speeds below the proposed 2Mbits/sec universal service commitment.

Frankly, given the predilection for video and audio on so many websites, that 2Mbits/sec threshold already looks woefully inadequate, but taking real superfast broadband to every home that wants it could be cripplingly expensive.

Of course, the UK is by no means alone in struggling to plug the divide between the fibre haves and have-nots. This blog is being typed from rural France with a connection that is currently working at 0.52Mbit/sec downspeed, and 0.13Mbits/sec up, with a ping time of 152ms. And all for the bargain price of €27 a month, near enough the same price that Parisians pay for a service that runs 200 times faster and includes television services.

This despite the fact that in October 2008 the French government announced sweeping plans to turn France into a leading digital economy by 2012. Sound familiar?

French solution

However, one of France’s solutions to those unlucky enough to have a line that takes a circuitous route from the exchange was at least targeted to exactly where it was needed, rather than pouring funding into universal rollout projects run by big corporation.

Anyone eligible can claim up to €400 towards equipment and installation costs for a satellite connection. It’s still not going to rival fibre feeds in the cities, but it does at least mean that at a single stroke France made sure everyone who wanted to could get access of at least 2Mbits/sec, and it didn’t waste money providing lines to people who didn’t want it.

That means other efforts to improve the network can focus on pushing fibre connection further into la France profonde with the breathless hurry of a farmer who’s late for lunch. Okay, satellite might be a compromise, but if someone else is paying the hefty cost of installation, it makes it a viable alternative for those that really need some extra speed and are willing to pay a premium.

It costs more than ADSL, and comes with crippling usage limits on lower priced subscriptions, but it does at least short circuit the rollout-isn’t-viable argument. And that makes it much easier to put up with life in the French countryside.

When you’ve dug yourself a hole, stop digging. Or if you’re the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), keep going until you hit the molten core of the Earth itself.

Regular PC Pro readers will know how the ASA has allowed ISPs to over-egg the speed of their broadband connections by permitting them to advertise fantasy “up to” speeds, which Ofcom’s research has proven time and again are pure fiction. Even Ofcom itself called for this insidious practice to stop over a year ago, since when the ASA has dithered with a year-long consultation on the use of “up to” speeds, but still hasn’t arrived at a conclusion.

Consequently, one ISP took matters into its own hands. Last year, Virgin Media launched its Stop The Broadband Con website, calling on ISPs to advertise typical rather than maximum speeds – very similar recommendations to those made by Ofcom itself.

Virgin, of course, has very good reason to make such calls. Ofcom’s research has repeatedly shown that Virgin’s actual connection speeds are much closer to the advertised headline speed than those offered by the ADSL providers.

Here, according to Ofcom, is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers of “up to” 20Mbits/sec or 24Mbits/sec ADSL packages (click to enlarge graph):

And here is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers on Virgin’s “up to” 20Mbits/sec cable lines:

As we can see, only 1% of ADSL customers get a maximum speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec. None get an average speed higher than 18Mbits/sec. Are those customers being conned when they’re sold “up to” 24Mbits/sec lines? In at least 99% of cases, yes.

Virgin made that very same point on its website. After complaints from rivals Sky and BT, the ASA decided that was beyond the pale, and ordered Virgin to shut down the site and not run its ads again.

“[We] considered the text “Not getting the broadband speed you’re paying for … Stop the broadband con” was also likely to be interpreted as suggesting other ISPs dealt with consumers dishonestly in relation to broadband speeds, rather than as highlighting Virgin’s concerns about the disparity they believed existed between broadband advertising and speeds delivered to consumers. We therefore concluded that the claims were denigratory.”

So outright exaggeration of ADSL speeds is fine; pointing this out isn’t.

Faster speeds “not better”

The ASA made another extraordinary statement regarding broadband speeds. Both Sky and BT had challenged Virgin’s assertion that “faster connection would always give a perceivable benefit for surfing the web and watching TV online”. Sky also moaned about Virgin’s assertion that an average ADSL speed of only 6.5Mbits/sec would lead to “buffering delays” compared to Virgin’s cable services.

The ASA, inexplicably, backed BT and Sky with one of the most technically inept judgements I’ve ever had the misfortune to read.

“We understood that, in order to surf the web or stream TV online without interruptions, consumers would need a certain amount of bandwidth and that some ADSL customers would have sufficient bandwidth to do so, even if their service was used concurrently. We noted that Virgin would therefore be unable to offer those ADSL customers who were not experiencing interruption problems an improved broadband experience.”

Here, the ASA appears to be claiming that a 20Mbits/sec Virgin cable line with an average speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec for the vast majority of customers, wouldn’t necessarily offer “an improved experience” over an ADSL line where only 1% of people get in excess of 18Mbits/sec. That is categorically wrong. If you’re waiting for a HD iPlayer video to buffer before playback, an 18Mbits/sec connection will start playing more quickly than a 6.5Mbit/sec connection every single time.

Not to mention the fact that you need a steady connection of at least 4Mbits/sec to even watch HD iPlayer streams –  something that 41% of customers on “up to 24Mbits/sec” ADSL lines simply can’t achieve, according to Ofcom’s empirical research.

Yet, because the ASA “had not seen evidence that a speed of 6.5 Mbits/sec would cause delays for internet users in all instances, we concluded that the claim was misleading”.

It’s one thing to allow ISPs to peddle lies about their broadband speeds; it’s quite another to censure another ISP when they point them out. The ASA is entirely responsible for the broadband con. It’s high time it stopped.

For years, fixed and mobile broadband providers have used the term “unlimited” to advertise services that are anything but.

We’ve moaned about it for years, and last month even our normally docile telecoms regulator said the term “unlimited” was being abused.  “There are people offering unlimited packages that contain a fair-use policy that means what you are getting is not unlimited,” said Ofcom chief executive Ed Richards. “If you are claiming unlimited then it needs to be unlimited.”

It seems the industry wasn’t listening. New data tariffs are still being advertised as “unlimited” even when they have specific download caps.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been conducting a review of broadband advertising, but frankly, we’re tired of waiting for this weak-kneed, self-regulating body to get its act together.

So, from now on, whenever we see a new tariff being advertised as “unlimited” when it patently isn’t, we’re going to add it to our blog of shame.

T-Mobile has the misfortune of being top of our list, simply because it’s the first network we’ve noticed to launch an offending tariff since the Ofcom chief declared war on the term “unlimited”, but we’re certain there are many more.

So we need your help. If you see a fixed or mobile operator advertising a new “unlimited” tariff that has strict limits, let us know on comments below, and we’ll name and shame them too.

THE “UNLIMITED” BLOG OF SHAME

TARIFF: T-Mobile tariff for iPad 2 (new customers)

WHAT IT SAYS: £25 per month including 1GB Anytime data, 1GB ‘Quiet Time’ data and unlimited Wi-Fi.

WHAT IT MEANS: Wi-Fi usage is subject to a 10GB per month fair usage policy.

DATE LAUNCHED: 25 March 2011.

(Update: A T-Mobile spokesperson told PC Pro: “Blocking providers from using the term ‘unlimited’ when a data cap is applied is something which Ofcom is currently considering, but hasn’t yet put in place. There are a few different options which it is still weighing up, and this is just one of them.”)

The news that major ISPs are on the verge of signing up to a Broadband Stakeholder Group code of conduct on net neutrality and traffic management might sound like good news for consumers, but what will it do for the net neutrality debate?

The issue of how ISPs treat packets of data from various sources, and whether they can prioritise some websites over others if they have been paid for express delivery, has been hotly contested and there is a possibility that these guidelines will settle a dispute that regulator Ofcom has resolutely distanced itself from.

Indeed, in the absence of any higher authority there is a danger that the BSG guidelines could be seen as de facto regulations on how ISPs can approach net neutrality and traffic shaping – largely because the BSG is, it claims, “the UK Government’s leading advisory group on broadband”. It’s even part funded by the Government.

The group was set up to act as a “neutral forum for organisations across the converging broadband value-chain to discuss and resolve key policy, regulatory and commercial issues”. So in many ways it’s well placed to proffer an industry standard, but there remains a nagging doubt about the BSG’s jurisdiction here.

The very people involved in building this code of practice are the ones that have the most to benefit from a relaxed approach to net neutrality

The BSG is, in effect, little more than an industry body, representing at least in part the needs of the powerful players within that industry. So this code could easily be seen as the industry making up its own rules to suit its own requirements. It’s like asking Paddy Power and Ladbrokes to police match-fixing in cricket or the tobacco industry to decide whether cigarettes are a health issue.

When we asked the BSG who had worked on this project it said it had “discussed it in detail with the major ISPs and mobile carriers”, which makes it sound like the BSG was the driving force behind the talks and that the industry was brought into line by the group.

Dig a little deeper, though, and you could question whether the guidelines weren’t actually drawn up by the ISPs themselves and merely rubber-stamped by the industry body.

Surely not? The BSG is an independent forum, right? Well yes it is, but someone still has to pay the bills. A look at the sponsors of the group shows that although it’s part funded by the Department for Culture Media and Sport, among its other key financiers are 3, BskyB, BT, Orange, O2, TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Vodafone.

The very people involved in building this code of practice are the ones that have the most to benefit from a relaxed approach to net neutrality.

As we reported last year, there is already concern that Big Business is being given far too big a say in the net neutrality debate, that governments should be taking a stronger stand for the rights of consumers.

When a group that is funded by the industry and Government starts issuing edicts about how ISPs should treat traffic management and net neutrality, it’s easy to suspect that those Big Business concerns are about to trample consumer opinion underfoot.

Despite buying broadband-themed issues of the magazine in record numbers, and filling our comments sections with gripes about your pitiful connection speeds, you never really cared that the “up to 24Mbits/sec” line you were sold was denying you access to publicly funded services such as the iPlayer or ruining your business, did you?

At least that’s what our spine-free advertising watchdogs are claiming. The consultation document released by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) shows remarkable disdain for the broadband public; a grudging irritation that they’ve been forced to even consider this issue after years of outright advertising abuse by Britain’s ISPs.

“The disparity between theoretical maximum and actual speeds was not until recently considered to be so great as to cause significant detriment to consumers,” states the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and its broadcast equivalent (BCAP), which carried out the review, whilst seemingly shrugging its shoulders and wondering what all the fuss is about.

It then manages to contradict itself mere paragraphs later. “The number of consumer complaints to the ASA about specific broadband speed claims has fallen significantly since 2007,” it states. Make your mind up – either this has only just become a problem, or it’s an old problem that people don’t care about any more. You can’t have it both ways.

However, the real sucker punch comes in the very next line. “The ASA continues, however, to receive general enquiries from the public and media comment, particularly in the technology press and user forums, which suggests some continuing dissatisfaction with the present policy.” In other words, they would have got away with it, if it wasn’t for people who know what they’re talking about kicking up a fuss. How inconvenient.

Neverthless, it still seems they’re going to do next to nothing about the broadband ad abuses. CAP/BCAP has “no plans” to prevent ISPs from using the weasel “up to” phrase in their advertising. And of the five proposals on the table for tightening up broadband ads, only one of them has any teeth – the proposal that would only allow ISPs to quote a speed that 50% of its consumers could receive.

If this is the option they go for – after a month of consultation with the ads industry – I’ll tattoo the phrase “I love the ASA” on my backside.

“I’m not interested in  any Steady Eddies or Cautious Carols,” barks Lord Sugar at the start of this week’s Apprentice – indeed, it’s Blundering Bordans that Amstrad Alan’s keen on.

The Bordan in question is Bordan Tkachuk, the CEO of computer firm Viglen, and one of the “trusted associates” dragged in to grill Sugar’s Apprentice candidates. Being the boss of a computer firm, Sugar naturally wants him to test out the technical acumen of Stuart Baggs – a hideous genetic blend of David Brent, Christopher Biggins and a cheap Burton’s suit.

Stuart “The Brand” Baggs runs his own ISP on the Isle of Man, and eagle-eyed Bordan’s spotted something iffy on his CV. Baggs claims he’s running a “fully licensed telecoms company”, but Bordan’s been on the blower to the Isle of Man authorities and found out that he only has a licence for broadband.

“Stuart you’re blagging to me,” said Tkachuk, cornering his prey. “I know what an ISP is. It’s an Internet Service Protocol.”

Erm… not last time I checked it wasn’t.  And given that Tkachuk’s “been running Alan Sugar’s companies for nearly the past 25 years” and so boasts that he knows “a little bit about technology”, he should know that P stands for provider not protocol.

Never mind. Anyone’s allowed a slip of the tongue, especially when they’re verbally beating up on the most irritating thing on television since Noel’s Christmas Presents.  Let’s move to the boardroom, where Bordan’s giving his feedback on Baggs to an expectant Lord Sugar of Brentwood.  “He says he has a telecoms licence on the Isle of Man,” snorts Tkachuk, with the Columbo-like flourish of a detective who has his suspect banged to rights.  “What he had was just a very simple broadcom licence.”

Broadcom? Broadcom? Either Viglen’s just invented an entirely new telecommunications protocol (Bordan’s keen on those after all), or Sugar’s technical lieutenant hasn’t got a chuffing clue what he’s talking about.

Sugar takes this news badly. Very badly indeed. He’d previously believed Baggs’ boasts of setting up his own broadband firm by the age of 21 – now it turns out he’s merely running an Internet Service Protocol with a broadcom licence. This young scallywag’s a fraud!

“My guy is not a mug,” said Sugar of Tkachuk. “You’re full of sh*t,”  before ordering Baggs to pack his, well, bags.

As my colleague Alex Watson sagely noted during the show on Twitter: “Given the quality of Sugar’s technical advisers, you can see where the em@iler came from.” Quite.

The headline figure is £830 million of Government money being ploughed into the project, up from the £530 million announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review a few weeks ago. Except closer inspection of the figures shows there’s no new money here, just some creative accounting.

The Government is stripping £150 million a year from the BBC’s licence fee pot to help fund next-gen broadband. Because the Comprehensive Spending Review only runs until 2015, the Government only accounted for two years’ worth of BBC contributions in its previously announced £530 million figure.  But because the Government’s broadband plan stretches to 2017, it can add another £300 million to the headline figure and make it look like new money, even if it’s just a rehash of previously announced plans. Cunning.

So what’s it going to do with all this money? Invest £50 million in a “second wave” of projects to deliver next-gen networks in rural areas, based on four pilot-projects that it’s already commissioned. So nothing new there then.

It’s also going to hand out 800MHz and 2.6GHz spectrum to facilitate the development of superfast mobile services – again, exactly as it announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review only a few weeks ago.

The only genuinely new announcement is the idea of creating a “central digital point” in every community, presumably a fibre connection that local residents and businesses can feed off.

What does the Government mean by a “community” – a town, a village, a telephone exchange? It doesn’t know. “We haven’t set out what we mean by a community,” a Department of Culture spokesman told me. “The likelihood is a village or hamlet will be considered a community, three houses at the top of a mountain won’t.”

“It’s not possible to define that and we’re not going to do so,” he added. And if it’s not possible to define it, it’s not possible to measure it either, which is convenient.

Even if the Government does manage to get a fibre hub into most towns and villages, there’s no guarantee your house or business will be connected. “Communities would then take responsibility for extending the network to individual homes,” the Government’s announcement states.

Joined-up Government? That’s not even close.