The lady in the FTTP Connections department told me my only option was BT as they had 'made an investment in the development'. When I pointed out that it sounded like BT had monopolised my choice as a consumer, she said 'other suppliers had the opportunity to provide a service but had chosen not to'.
A couple of years ago, we went through a phase where brownfield FTTP sites (ie not new build) were being quoted excess construction charges by Openreach, in order to connect to the FTTP infrastructure, even if it was just across the street. That felt strange too, when FTTC orders would never get any kind of ECC charge.
The problem seemed to go away when BT (at retail level) chose to consume the excess construction charges without passing them on to the householder; other ISPs would not match that offer.
I always wondered, then, if this was one reason why other mass-market/cheap ISPs didn't want to get involved - because it would mean getting involved with ECCs, and possibly having to pay out for them.
This concerns me. Does this mean that it's BT and not Openreach who provide the line in this scenario?
I wonder, then, in your case: has BT chosen to pay some excess construction charge.
If it's Openreach, I don't see how they can legally do this, as it was my understanding is that they had to offer their infrastructure to wholesale. I'm hoping someone here can shed some light on this
The legal position is more complicated than that.
First, it is down to the developer to decide who to engage to provide utility services. They don't have to choose BT. The government is keen to ensure there is competition in supply to new-builds.
But conversely, the law has put in place a USO requirement that BT provides (at minimum) a line capable of voice service and 28kb dial-up speeds. However, this USO comes with the ability to charge ECC's, and (importantly) doesn't apply if the land-owner is not giving permission for Openreach to install their equipment.
The roads on new-build sites are private, until everything has finished, and been adopted by the council. Openreach has no right to use them unless the developer agrees.
So ... some developers choose a different supplier for fibre services. Anyone buying a house is essentially locked-in to that supplier (see the mention of "see the light" above) at least until the road gets adopted ... perhaps 3 years after building has finished.
I also wonder what happens to some of these estates being built without proper freeholds.
So you are in a strange legal limbo in a new-build. As it is feasible for a developer to reach some kind of lock-in agreement with a third party fibre supplier, I wonder if it is also possible for a developer to lock-in BT as a supplier instead ... at least until adoption.
It's only a theory ... and I could see how BT's name could become mud for doing it. But it might also be the only way that excess construction charges can be recouped. I wouldn't put it past a developer