ISP's offering FTTP without line rental

Hi all,

I've got a friend who is about to move into a place where FTTP is available (NOT fibre on demand). Ideally as he only uses the mobile he has no use for a land line so ideally he is looking for a ISP that offers FTTP without needing line rental. Does anyone know any ISP's that allow you to order FTTP without needing to take out line rental?.

Thanks

Technically possible but the price rises so that it is same cost anyway

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Technically possible but the price rises so that it is same cost anyway

This. You pay it anyway. Joys of being a monopoly, Openreach force you to pay line rental one way or the other even if you don't want a voice service.

And if you have to pay for it, if you have it or not, you may as well have it - eg for calling numbers that are free/cheaper on a landline.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Technically possible but the price rises so that it is same cost anyway

This. You pay it anyway. Joys of being a monopoly, Openreach force you to pay line rental one way or the other even if you don't want a voice service.

There's always going to be a component of the cost that covers maintenance of the cable and head-end equipment. Last I heard the cost of providing a voice service was a couple of quid a month so that would suggest a minimum fee of £10pcm with the costs of providing a data service on top of that.

There's always going to be a component of the cost that covers maintenance of the cable and head-end equipment. Last I heard the cost of providing a voice service was a couple of quid a month so that would suggest a minimum fee of £10pcm with the costs of providing a data service on top of that.

Right. The maintenance and overheads dwarf the cost of moving a few kilobits of voice data for a few minutes here and there.

If you live in a dense but modern area, Openreach doesn't spend anywhere near £10pcm providing service to you unless there's a disaster. And if you live in the middle of nowhere with a mile of cable on poles just to reach your phone they've probably spent more than £10pcm looking after it, costs for a guy with a cherry picker would get though a year's line rental in an hour or so. That's how it goes with universal service, some of us subsidise service for the rest, but everybody benefits from the resulting network effect.

You can get line rental that's literally just that, rental for the line but no calls bundled or whatever, and they're often a cheaper option if you really won't actually plug in a phone. A&A (who aren't exactly cheap in general) charge me £10 per month for this IIRC.

Thanks all for replying.

I knew it would cost some to not have it but it does seem to take the pi$$ when it costs pretty much the same.

As he's got no need to actually use the phone line may as well go down the cheapest route and go for prime saver option of around £9 a month instead of the amount BT charge.

Thanks again

?
Can he find an FTTP provider that doesn't require the phone line to be with them as well? Plusnet may, but he would need to sign up on ADSLx first and then get on the trial.

Perhaps AAISP would go along with it.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

There's always going to be a component of the cost that covers maintenance of the cable and head-end equipment. Last I heard the cost of providing a voice service was a couple of quid a month so that would suggest a minimum fee of £10pcm with the costs of providing a data service on top of that.

Yet if you take a copper line with it that cost of maintenance of the fibre cable and headend equipment suddenly doesn't exist. Strange that.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jul-14 16:53:56)

Not to forget the shared trunking, poles (for those fed overhead), manholes, premises, etc. FTTP users need to contribute towards those costs in the same way as everybody else.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Not to forget the shared trunking, poles (for those fed overhead), manholes, premises, etc. FTTP users need to contribute towards those costs in the same way as everybody else.

Think to be honest it's more down to the desire to keep the price of FTTP the same as that of FTTC at the lower levels.

It has nothing to do with Openreach. It is a marketing decision which is little different from selling cars with bundled service contracts or warranties. When competition focuses on headline prices for one good or service the price may be driven to a level where suppliers cannot cover their full costs. So suppliers bundle other services on which they can make a decent margin. Ultimately the real competition is between different bundles rather than a menu from which customers can choose without constraint.

Either you get what may seem to be an expensive FTTP service or a cheap FTTP service with mandatory line rental. The end cost is more or less the same after adjusting for the cost of adding a basic Voip phone service. In this case you can't blame upstream providers like OR for the way in which retailers respond to the behaviour of customers.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

There's always going to be a component of the cost that covers maintenance of the cable and head-end equipment. Last I heard the cost of providing a voice service was a couple of quid a month so that would suggest a minimum fee of £10pcm with the costs of providing a data service on top of that.

Yet if you take a copper line with it that cost of maintenance of the fibre cable and headend equipment suddenly doesn't exist. Strange that.

Not really that strange. It's just accounting and marketing departments running the numbers. they've perhaps decided that since people will see it as one line it would damage the market if they tried to charge double line rental.

Just because they don't charge double for two things doesn't mean that one of them has no cost.

Edited by Andrue (Sat 12-Jul-14 17:48:55)

@RobertoS

Unfortunately on Plusnet FTTP, you must maintain a working OR phone line as part of the T&C's of the FTTP trial. No naked fttp here. And if you don't pay Plusnet for the phone, they increase your costs by £2.50 a month.

Also, Plusnet is very much a trial FTTP and given how many years it has been going and how few customers they have on it, I'm concerned for the future. There is no timetable for the end of the trial or its change to a main stream product.

If I leave Plusnet then I have to pay a cancellation charge on the FTTP and the options of who to go to are limited for the service. It is amazing how much your bandwidth usage goes up when the DSL link can do more than 1 thing at a time. On ADSL we used a maximum of 16GB a month and now it is a minimum of 250GB.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting Plusnet would do it without a "phone" line. Just that they may not insist on the line being with them. Don't forget, I was replying to the OP thinking of getting a cheapo line .

With BT he would have a big fight not to take theirs. Though I have heard of them taking people on broadband only (not on fibre so far as I know) who are mid-term elsewhere for phone.

Hi RobertoS,

thanks for reply, that's what he is looking at doing at the mo as line rental at other places is £16 upwards, so it would be cheaper to get the cheapo phone line for £8.50 and then pay say Zen the extra £4.50 (for not taking out line rental with them).

So

that would come to £38 a month (going with the Zen 80/20 option)

If he did Zen for both then it's £42 a month

BT works out £42 a month as well

So he would be saving £4 a month for doing it with the cheapo line rental as it would only be needed for BB (well obviously it's not really needed for what will be his connection but he has to take it out anyway).

I'm with AAISP myself and they are great but he watches quite a lot of netflix and would go over 100gb easy so they are not really an option unfortunately.

Thanks again.

Do Zen do FTTP? It does talk about it in their T & Cs, but on the same page says that fibre broadband services are rate adaptive, which FTTP isn't.

In reply to a post by gah789:

It has nothing to do with Openreach. It is a marketing decision which is little different from selling cars with bundled service contracts or warranties. When competition focuses on headline prices for one good or service the price may be driven to a level where suppliers cannot cover their full costs. So suppliers bundle other services on which they can make a decent margin. Ultimately the real competition is between different bundles rather than a menu from which customers can choose without constraint.

Either you get what may seem to be an expensive FTTP service or a cheap FTTP service with mandatory line rental. The end cost is more or less the same after adjusting for the cost of adding a basic Voip phone service. In this case you can't blame upstream providers like OR for the way in which retailers respond to the behaviour of customers.

Err Openreach pricing is exactly to blame. They're the ones who add the premium for not taking a voice service.

That was my thought also, as if Zen start doing FTTP at the same pricing as their unlimited FTTC then that opens up market a fair bit i.e. that is newsworthy

I have no doubt you will come back with the answer .

It would certainly get it a lot of recommendations here.

How much are Openreach charging providers for this line rental and how much has it increased over the last few years?

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jul-14 21:54:14)

Well I assumed so as like you said it was in the T & C, but like you said later on it says its rate adaptive, fired off an email anyway to find out.

A lot of ISP's only check via post code only if you don't have a phone line (he doesn't move in until next month so doesn't have a active line there) which is annoying as FTTP doesn't show up on the post code checker but it shows up fine on the address checker.

Do ISP's not just offer FTTP packages for the same as the FTTC ones then?

say 40/10 costs £25 for FTTC, can they not just offer 40/10 for FTTP? for the same price.

If someone can get 40meg via FTTC then someone on 40meg via FTTP can't get it any quicker, or am I missing something?. I understand ISP's would be reluctant to offer unlimited on the higher end packages but surely there is no issues offering it on the standard 40/10 80/20, I realise not everyone can get max speeds on them on FTTC but a lot of people are close enough to get 40.

There must be some complication, as Plusnet have been trialling FTTP for ages. I agree with your logic, but if it were correct then apart from CS training there is nothing to trial.

BT Retail do supply FTTP and FTTC at the same price for the 80/20 and lower products. The Openreach prices are also identical.

You sort of raise the subject of the speeds. I don't think we see many here opting for FTTC at 40/2 or 40/10 when they can get 80/20, though there are a one or two looking at the new PN 40/20. As the FTTP products do run at the rated speed, not "up to", I suppose there may be an issue at times of heavy demand, as they will hit the pipes at full speed, not the FTTC assortment of speeds.

This applies particularly to things like Apple IOS downloads or a new blockbuster film coming online. FTTP users will go at full speed. Congestion for all users could be caused. It would be OTT to provide extra bandwidth at the nodes for the purpose, and unacceptable to allow the congestion. A rock and a hard place for the ISPs.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 12-Jul-14 22:26:28)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You sort of raise the subject of the speeds. I don't think we see many here opting for FTTC at 40/2 or 40/10 when they can get 80/20, though there are a one or two looking at the new PN 40/20.

I took 40/10, there's only me and 40Mbps goes a long way. IIRC (it's a while since I looked so I may just be wrong) there's a noticeable step change at 40Mbps in the national broadband survey data which suggests I am far from alone. I considered 80/20 and even FTTPoD but I decided that either would be basically just showing off rather than delivering any noticeable value. Service has been live for about a month now, never thought "I wish I had more bandwidth" yet.

As the FTTP products do run at the rated speed, not "up to", I suppose there may be an issue at times of heavy demand, as they will hit the pipes at full speed, not the FTTC assortment of speeds.

No reason that would be any more of a problem for FTPP realistically.

This applies particularly to things like Apple IOS downloads or a new blockbuster film coming online. FTTP users will go at full speed. Congestion for all users could be caused. It would be OTT to provide extra bandwidth at the nodes for the purpose, and unacceptable to allow the congestion. A rock and a hard place for the ISPs.

In reality very few events make a noticeable difference because people vary. Your household may have six iPhone, the neighbours have none. You watch the world cup avidly, next door they're only interested in Wimbledon, and so on. Apple doesn't have infinite bandwidth either, so they will stagger the iOS availability (as do Microsoft for Windows, Google for Nexus Android updates, and so on)

There will be exceptional things that cause congestion but a properly managed backhaul will see only rare hiccups, and customers shrug those off.

For WBC the backhaul isn't even the ISP's problem, it's supplied with the service, they only have to buy enough transit bandwidth, and if they can't manage that then they're probably also going to struggle with logistics like billing and remembering which shoe goes on which foot. Of course choosing not to manage it properly to save money is another matter as the US ISPs have illustrated.

(edited to add)

As to why many ISPs don't offer it: My theory would be it's because it's a minority product; bigger companies can't support minority products well because they like to train all customer service people identically and then treat them as interchangeable. Training fifty people about FTTP would be a waste (so few customers have it, many agents would never take a call that used the training) but training Bob about it but not Sarah means that when a customer calls Sarah and the screen says "Customer has FTTP" she has to know to forward to Bob, assuming he's even in today.

If you're A&A this doesn't matter, small team, everybody knows the deal, if something comes up that one person doesn't know about they've a good idea who to pass it to, and they can banjo if they need to. But if you're a bigger firm it's a nightmare. If the UK had a million potential FTTP customers, they'd all fall over themselves, but if it's more like 5000 why even bother?

Edited by deleted (Sun 13-Jul-14 00:31:28)

So you'd think BT Group would realise this and put in more FTTP because it's basically just BT Retail selling it for now.

I'm not sure about plusnet, but watch out for BT's minimum spend on landlines...

If you sign up to BT's line rental saver, you have to make two chargeable calls a month, otherwise they add something like £2.50 onto your bill.

They count 03 non-geo as a chargeable call, however these are included in my weekend package, so I just ring an 0330 number every other week.

I think we are also forgetting that even standard FTTP is subject to survey, and possible excess costs/charges to the end user.

That's more order processing, provisioning team and CS training issues.

In reply to a post by partial:

How much are Openreach charging providers for this line rental and how much has it increased over the last few years?

Completely irrelevant and regardless it remains profitable.

@Icaras

As Robert says, the devil is in the survey. The trial area I'm in has numerous problems with it being extended to the next local area due to blockages in the ducts. The housing stock is 25 years and younger but in some streets, the access is blocked in every duct. Very dodgy builders in some areas.

Openreach have scaled back from expanding the tests due to the excessive amount of time it takes to install the FTTP into these relatively new properties. Instead the resources are been used to work on the BDUK projects elsewhere instead.

When I ordered native FTTP through PlusNet there was a survey and because our copper is in armoured cables and there is no ducting they wanted over £3000 in excess construction charges despite the fact that the manifold is only 20m from my front door. I have now ordered from BT Retail to see if the charges get absorbed somehow.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by partial:

How much are Openreach charging providers for this line rental and how much has it increased over the last few years?

Completely irrelevant and regardless it remains profitable.

Completely relevant.

You told us that Openreach are charging line rental as they are a monopoly.

So surely it is worth exploring exactly how much Openreach charge for Line Rental and how much it has increased over the years. How much do Openreach charge per month for line rental?

Funnily enough Openreach has to provide copper loops for areas that are covered by FTTP. They have to maintain copper loops for customers that take FTTP this cost does not fall out of the sky.

Openreach have to provide fibre in tandem with copper to allow TalkTalk and Sky access to the market so they can sweat their copper assets. Somebody has got to pay for that and it isn't going to be Sky and TalkTalk, it's gonna be the consumer.

I note that monopoly provider, Virgin Media, charge extra for line rental when a customer takes broadband without voice yet are totally outside the Openreach network and also nobody can unbundle their plant for less than a couple of quid per month.

Edited by deleted (Mon 14-Jul-14 22:05:57)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

That was my thought also, as if Zen start doing FTTP at the same pricing as their unlimited FTTC then that opens up market a fair bit i.e. that is newsworthy

Zen have got back to me today via email and said

"We are about to release new FTTP products and I hope to be able to provide further information in the next 24-48 hours"

So hopefully it will be something half decent.

In reply to a post by partial:

Funnily enough Openreach has to provide copper loops for areas that are covered by FTTP. They have to maintain copper loops for customers that take FTTP this cost does not fall out of the sky.

Ebbsfleet Valley? There's also a development in Northamptonshire that's FTTP only.

No. I said thanks to being a monopoly they can bake full voice line rental into FTTP data only costs.

If you're that obsessed by the subject though when was the last time everyone's d-sides were replaced given that part of the line rental is for periodic renewal of them?

Virgin Media are not considered a monopoly or to have significant market power.

There are FTTP-only greenfield areas with no copper running next to them. There is no reason why BT can't retire copper with Ofcom's approval. Deddington mean anything to you, if they every actually get around to retiring the copper that is? Fibre only exchange. Awesome how that works given it's apparently impossible according to you.

Given BT put money in your pocket, presumably via a subcontractor, your name suits you.

Edited by deleted (Tue 15-Jul-14 14:23:45)

Sorry you decided to play the man rather than the issues, Carl. I'll resist the temptation.

In reply to a post by partial:

Sorry you decided to play the man rather than the issues, Carl. I'll resist the temptation.

Okay...

3.17 As a result of Ofcom�s review of BT�s cost of capital (see footnote 5), Ofcom
concluded that the appropriate rate of return on capital employed for BT�s access
network is 10.0%.

If you have evidence that BT aren't getting that for access network capital please contact Openreach so that they can put it to Ofcom.

Next, line rental. WLR first:

Basic Line Rental terminating on: Old type socket, master socket or Linebox £91.05 + VAT / year.

Then MPF: £86.11 + VAT / year.

You're wrong about the requirement to keep the copper there - it can be retired when fibre is connected. The requirement is to deliver a phone line; FTTP can and does do that which is why there are greenfield FTTP-only sites, and why Deddington is planned to go fibre only.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/01/dedding...

http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?A...

Perhaps given you know everything you could tell me why it costs £100.68 + VAT / year more if you don't take line rental with an FTTP product than with - this is more than the cost of WLR or MPF.

Or perhaps why FTTP with Fibre Voice Access, IE a VLAN running on the same fibre, costs more than FTTP + WLR or FTTP + MPF.

Hi bright, as we now know, the big excess would have made you the first in your close, I reckon that once you factor in your two neighbours getting it then the cost will evaporate, or at least decrease hugely.

With hindsight the planners quote made sense, 7m of road crossing (not cheap) three footway boxes, one on the other side of the road from the manifold/DP at the top of the close, another by the concrete drive of your neighbours, and one outside yours. All this would mean that any further installs down your side would be much easier/cheaper for Openreach.

This don't help you much, but who knows, 'take one for the team' and they might rename your close after you !

Hi. Zarjaz. It was good to meet you earlier in the week. Thanks for dropping by to show me what was in the various chambers and help me understand the network layout.

As for the costs to overlay the existing armour cabled copper network with ducting suitable for the fibre, they might be realistic. However, to expect a residential consumer to pay over £3000 to install a product that retails at £26 per month is unacceptable. If BT had deployed FTTC to us and I then asked for FTTPoD then fair enough. I would have a choice about whether to pay or not. But I have no choice. BT chose to deploy FTTP and therefore I feel that they have to make it available at a reasonable cost to all users equally. Expecting the first user out of 16 to pay the full cost of the work is also not reasonable.

Anyway, I will wait and see what BT Retail have to say when they make their decision and hopefully you will be back in a few weeks to complete the installation.

They should give you a percentage of the profits made from future customers in that close!

Anyway, I will wait and see what BT Retail have to say when they make their decision and hopefully you will be back in a few weeks to complete the installation.

I look forward to it, if it isn't me it'll be one of my two mates, so mention my name.

TTFN.

An update to this oldish post.

My mate had FTTP installed yesterday and ended up going with AAISP for £35 a month like I do. So although they were more expensive to begin with he was able to order without needing to pay extra on top for a land line so well done to AAISP.
He originally thought 100gb wasn't going to be enough due to watching netflix but he signed up to sky now so is cancelling netflix.

How many units/GB at what times is that please? I can't get the calculator to produce £35pm.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How many units/GB at what times is that please? I can't get the calculator to produce £35pm.

Could be the Home:1 tarrif, which doesn't use units. That is £35pm for 100GB usage, but with only 40/10 speed. For 200GB a month at 40/10 its £45. For 80/20 its an extra £5 on each of those.

So if you want 80/20 with 200GB of usage, its £50/month! Compared to pretty much anyone else that is a lot of money. Yes you get amazing support and IPv6 and it all works, but its an expensive option.

I didn't think they did FTTP though.

http://www.aa.net.uk/broadband-FP.html

Shows the units based charging, but hint that Home::1 is available too.

If the person is on Home::1 then we will add the GEA-FTTP as wholesale option to their listing.

As James suggests, it will be Home::1. This page, scroll down to the large type, makes it clear that it is available on FTTP and FTTC.

I'm surprised it doesn't need line rental, unless it only has VOIP for a phone service on the FTTP option. I've a feeling I read weeks ago that it might.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 09-Aug-14 11:42:05)

Hi MrSaffron.

It is indeed Home::1

Do you have a landline? Has this other person?

Hi,

I've a landline as I'm on FTTC but this is unrelated to his place. There is a land line physically at his place but it's not active (well we guess it's not he doesn't have a phone to check but he doesn't pay for it)

What's intriguing me is that for FTTC you do have to pay line rental to someone. So he would appear to be paying £10+ less that you in total, and he has a better fibre service from the same supplier.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What's intriguing me is that for FTTC you do have to pay line rental to someone. So he would appear to be paying £10+ less that you in total, and he has a better fibre service from the same supplier.

As it is 40/10 as long as the FTTC alternative can sustain those speeds then for all intents and purposes the service is the same whether it is FTTP or FTTC. FTTP gives more options for the future but barring possibly lower latency gives no visible benefit in this case.

In reply to a post by ian72:

... . FTTP gives more options for the future but barring possibly lower latency gives no visible benefit in this case.

Also immunity from REIN, which has the potential to occur at any time.

There are plenty of FTTC connections that cannot achieve 40/10.

I did specifically say "as long as the FTTC alternative can sustain" - if you have a short FTTC line then there is in effect no difference between the two solutions. A good percentage of FTTC lines will handle 40/10 with no issue.

I agree that FTTP is the better long term option and for my package would be better (have an up to 80Mbps package getting 45/15) many users would perceive no difference between the technologies. Saying that it is £10 cheaper for a better service is not true if FTTC is able to sustain exactly the same service on that connection.

REIN apart, in the special case of a full sustainable 40/10 sync it is still £10 cheaper.

If we all made sure not a single word of our post could be queried these forums wouldn't get far. I also think it highly unlikely that many would regard full sync 40/10 FTTC as being as good as 40/10 FTTP, but the point really isn't worth arguing about.

I admit I was being very pedantic - given the choice I would have FTTP but as long as the 2 perform the same for a particular location then there is no end user benefit to doing so. Future proofing and avoidance of [traditional copper] issues make FTTP better but in actual use there is virtually no difference at this level.

However, you could of course argue (as you do) that it is better because it does appear it does not need the line rental hence the £10 saving.

EDIT : Added the bit in []'s for clarity

Edited by ian72 (Tue 12-Aug-14 13:42:10)

In reply to a post by ian72:

avoidance of issues make FTTP better

Nearly split my tea over the keyboard when I read this.

Sorry but as an FTTP user, you do get problems with FTTP. And when they hit you, the suppliers are not clued up enough to solve them. My service had been in for 8 months working perfectly, then hit an issue with speeds as low as 500Kbps for 18hours at a time. Problem also affected other FTTP users from all ISP's within my area. It took 4 months to solve as Openreach/ISP's/OEM manufacturer would not accept it was a problem in the exchange. Eventually Openreach swapped out several components in the exchange (but over a period of a month) and service came back to normal.

So FTTP is not a cure for every problem. Nor is it unbreakable. It is badly supported though.

I didn't intend that as such a wide sweeping statement - "avoidance of common copper issues" perhaps would be better. Fibre does not suffer the same decay/crosstalk issues that cause problems on ADSL/VDSL technologies.

Anything from the exchange backwards isn't an "FTTP" issue per-se but it is possible that depending on the design certain components will only be servicing the FTTP user base and therefore could be seen as an FTTP issue (I'm assuming this was the problem with yours).

And of course FTTP could get other issues with damage to the fibre itself (perhaps from other BT works pulling new cables through that could snag and damage existing fibre). I suspect the joints in fibre could also be a potential problem area.

So yes, FTTP will of course have it's own problems but avoids the main "traditional" copper problems.

He could - because $dayjob does not require you to have your PSTN with us.

What is $dayjob? Who is "s"?

The point is it appears there is no need with AAISP FTTP to have a PSTN line at all.

Edit - oops, I didn't check which of my posts you had replied to. Sorry. The thread is still about having no PSTN line.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 13-Aug-14 01:06:20)

Yes, there is no need with FTTP to have a PSTN service at all.