OpenReach - Bad Management or Profiteering?

I am genuinely not sure if it deliberate or simple incompetence from OR - Your voews appreciated!

In my cul-de-sac, OR have run fibre past my house to the end of the cul-de-sac (150m) and provided full FTTP to 11 out of 33 properties allegedly because they were "A Lot further from the Cab and unable to get 30Mbps" - OR have also claimed this was "Funded by council" - which it categorically was not.

Now, I am told by OR that "Fibre is not in my area" and/or "There are no plans to upgrade your address"

When I enquired via Zen, they were told:

"I can see that your customer was in a plan to bring fibre broadband to your area but the plan has now been cancelled. Due to the complex nature of the network, our plans occasionally change. For a variety of reasons, this can cause some areas to be removed from their expected fibre rollout.

If you want to bring fibre to your property sooner there are a few options you could look into.

Community Fibre Partnership, Community Fibre Partnerships are for areas which can’t get fibre broadband, aren’t included in our plans to expand the fibre network or are too far away from a fibre cabinet to get faster speeds. We split the costs of an upgrade between us and your local community, so we cover some of the costs and the community clubs together to fund the rest. The CFP team will also explore any voucher schemes which could help with the cost."

So, My question...

Do OpenReach actually think the best way to roll out country wide FTTP is to do it piecemeal, revisiting each street multiple times at obviously increased cost and time and effort?

Or is there something more underhand going on? - I have repeatedly been told to "Go find funding" if I want FTTP - either individually or as a group effort here. The Fibre is already going past my drive, but do we think that will be taken into account if we get funding, or will OR quote for the whole fibre installation process back to the cab?

There is no way that visiting a street with only 33 properties multiple times to provide FTTP is the most cost effective way to provide the service, unless OR are somehow profiting from doing it this way. and that is taking money from us individuals and the government to pay for far more work that is actually required, over a longer time frame and serving no ones interest apart from OpenReach and their shareholders.

Feel free to check addresses in CV12 0GR and look at the speeds and FTTP availability, Properties 21 and 23-43 (11 properties with gaps in numbering) have FTTP options, while the rest of us are left out in the cold.

Has anyone else seen this behaviour from OR?

My opinion is that they should be held accountable for their actions and mismanagement of the network, which is to the disadvantage of the country as a whole.

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

OR have also claimed this was "Funded by council" - which it categorically was not.

How do you know that? Have you spoken to your local BDUK representative?

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

There is no way that visiting a street with only 33 properties multiple times to provide FTTP is the most cost effective way to provide the service, unless OR are somehow profiting from doing it this way.

Maybe not, but it would make sense if BDUK had paid them to provide a faster service to those specific properties only, e.g. to meet a 24Mbps or 30Mbps "superfast" definition. It would also be the case if one of those properties ordered FTTP on Demand, and the other properties were covered by the same CBT.

I looked at broadbandchecker.btwholesale.com and CV12 0GR; number 33 has a predicted FTTC speed range 28.5-45.7. At first glance it seems unlikely that would trigger a BDUK upgrade, but FTTPoD remains a possibility.

FTTPoD is when an individual or business pays a *large* amount of money - typically £8K+VAT or more - to get FTTP installed to their property when it's not in current OR rollout plans.

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

and that is taking money from us individuals and the government to pay for far more work that is actually required, over a longer time frame and serving no ones interest apart from OpenReach and their shareholders.

If you agree that it serves the interest of "OpenReach and their shareholders" to work this way, then by definition that's the most commercially-viable solution.

Has anyone else seen this behaviour from OR?

My opinion is that they should be held accountable for their actions and mismanagement of the network, which is to the disadvantage of the country as a whole.

Every single day.
All rollouts need to end somewhere.

If they completed your whole street and stopped there then the next street would make the same complaint.

It isn't mismanagement. They will have installed enough capacity to return at a later date and do the other properties.

They have a cost per premises passed target they want to meet. It could be that the other properties were over that figure.

It could well have been a BDUK funded project to increase the speeds of only some homes. That's very common.

It could also have been an FTTPoD order, paid for by a single resident on the street. If that were the case then the normal practice is for only a single Distribution Point (pole or underground chamber) to be enabled. Never the whole street.

Either way what you have described is normal. It seems incompetent to the average Joe but when you know the technology, industry, costs, regulation etc then the reasons for suddenly stopping at a point make sense.
As above they need to stop somewhere.

Edited by j0hn83 (Fri 12-Nov-21 13:58:39)

How do you know that there was no funding made available to the properties that couldn't get superfast speeds before? The most likely explanation is that it was installed as part of a public sector contract that only listed certain premises on it.

I have multiple emails from the local council department who have provided funding to other areas confirming:

My colleagues who work on the data side of things both went through the data that we have at our disposal yesterday and agreed that we have done nothing in that area. The Exhall 5 cabinet appears to have been upgraded by Openreach as part of their own commercial deployment programme. It was not upgraded by the CSW Broadband Project. 11 properties have since been upgraded to FTTP. We have checked / gone back through the data that we have and we are confident that it wasn't done by the CSW Broadband Project.

We have been in touch with a couple of colleagues from Openreach who have also stated that it wasn't through the CSW Broadband Project.

I should probably add that OR have been pretty much all over the whole estate around here putting FTTP to the majority of roads. This was not a quick visit just to the end of the cul-de-sac.

If a whole area is part of a roll-out then it makes sense to flood that area as a whole - not to come back again and again.

Two weeks ago, OR were back at the end of the road and according to the OR engineer, they were "Doing FTTP for another 2 properties".. This required three OR vans with 2 engineers in each for the whole day - the same as managed 11 properties in a day last time.

If you would like to again justify how that is a cost effective way to upgrade the whole country, I am keen to hear your argument!

It's possible that somebody did a community funded build and only put in the slow properties. Have you asked around?

OR say the properties were upgraded to FTTP "Because they could not get 30Mbps"

This is right at the bottom of the impacted speed range for the properties that have been upgraded.

Speaking to some of the residents, they say they had issues with their FTTC dropping out and being unreliable, and the problem remains now they are on FTTP.

OR have been running fibre all around this estate during the last year - my point is, that to part flood an estate and then tell the rest to pay up or wait years and see if we get FTTP eventually is simply very inefficient, and I am left wondering if OR are counting 22 properties that cannot order FTTP in their "Properties passed by FTTP" statistics, because they have gone right past here?

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

OR say the properties were upgraded to FTTP "Because they could not get 30Mbps"

This has all the hallmarks of a BDUK rollout including the OR comment above, you won't be the first person to find out BDUK don't know their [censored] from their elbow.

Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Nov-21 14:50:27)

Following the information here:

https://www.telcotitans.com/btwatch/openreach-off-th...

Where BT are aiming to achieve a cost of £250 per property passed for FTTP, I don't see how what I am seeing around here makes sense unless they are working on huge contributions from those left out of the FTTP rollout..

Oh wait - that does seem to be what they are doing...

As others have said - This is likely a BDUK Infill project, and whilst your local team may not appear to know they funded the 11 properties, chances are they are doing so because they full under the sub 30mpbs BDUK threshold.

Openreach will sometimes expand their own commercial rollout alongside these BDUK infills if they think it's commercially viable, but as you've experienced, they may only go after the properties they need to.
In Derbyshire, they've regularly targeted small numbers of properties, which are near by to slightly larger villages but fall outside of the 30MPB threshold from existing FTTC cabs, and OR has then not expanded or rolled out commercially any further.

Openreach aren't a charity, they are a business nor do they owe anyone FTTP or need to be held accountable by anybody bar their Customer ISP's. The only way we will blanket cover the UK with FTTP is by way of massive government investment in both the cost of actually implementing it, but also people to do it and plan it.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

OR say the properties were upgraded to FTTP "Because they could not get 30Mbps"

This has all the hallmarks of a BDUK rollout including the OR comment above, you won't be the first person to find out BDUK don't know their [censored] from their elbow.

I'll second that, for our FTTP neither BT/OR, or local council BDUK leason officer had a clue what was happening, it was only when I contacted another council officer who had older/longer contacts that we found out it was BDUK funded. So half our village is FTTP the other half has the fibre running past them but are still on FTTC.

100% that will have been done by BDUK probably as part of gainshare

its the only likley explantion and it could only have been done if those premises did not reach 30 meg and none others would have been done as they could not have been funded by the programme

the cab done under commercial would have been as FTTC and tthat could have been now anything up to 5 - 10 years ago

Not my network and i dont know how OR decide what and where to deploy, but I have to agree with the OPs comments that running fibre up a cul de sack and not provisioning for the other houses on that same street seems like an incredible waste of time and resources when OR are invested in a massive nationwide roll out.

Once the teams are already there to deploy surely the cost per premise passed at that point for the extras is negligible by comparison to coming back later and as such you'd think would make sense both financially and from purely the numbers game.

People cite nearby villages in this thread or streets close by , but that's a whole different ball game than the same cul de sac, bypassing a few houses in the same street.

Even the fttpod scenario quoted doesn't really seem to make any financial sense when you figure they ran fibre right up the road but don't consider it a good long term plan to provide for the few extras 'as they were there anyway'

If i paid for fttpod then connecting more along he way would be quite a big ask given the distances between properties and the amount of junctions or cbts required each serving maybe one or two houses.

Although I totally understand your frustration, as I am in a virtually identical scenario, I’ve come to accept that OR have shareholders, who want to make money. My advice is go down the community fibre partnership route and see what the projected build cost would be and whether your eligible for gigabit vouchers. Due to the close proximity of the network and the small number of houses the excess build charge is likely to be fairly small.

I'd guess, and we are all guessing here, duct issues. Like they have them and your houses doesn't.

In reply to various posts...

No lack of Ducts - they cleared the ducts and ran the fibre up the whole road to the end, I have ducting at my front door as does every house to the nearest underground chamber.

My view is that OpenReach are supposed to be running out Fibre broadly to the whole country and logically should do it in the most efficient manner and use of resources and manpower - this is a ideal goal, obviously and there will always be exceptions but...

If we expect this road and area to be upgraded in the next 4 years, along with most of the country, then is makes sense to do a logical area like a whole postcode and tick it off as completed... Not do a bit - come back again and again to do a bit more, that is CLEARLY inefficient - unless the incremental funding provides a financial incentive to do it that way, in which case OR are profiteering from the rollout at our expense AND stretching it out over a longer timeframe as well. There's only one benefit to this and it is to OR.

The argument that these 11 properties were upgraded because a couple were not getting 30Mbps, where the stats indicate a wort case impacted speed of 28Mbps or so is equally silly.. After all, what exactly stops working at say 28Mbps that works at 30Mbps? The OR response of "Quick , under 30Mbps, get FTTP in there ASAP" just makes no sense at all. Surely, there are areas with much lower speeds that would benefit far more? and in either case, get the best value for the engineers on the ground by knocking off a whole postcode and not creating a "Digital divide" within one street.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sat 13-Nov-21 11:29:22)

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Openreach aren't a charity, they are a business nor do they owe anyone FTTP or need to be held accountable by anybody bar their Customer ISP's. The only way we will blanket cover the UK with FTTP is by way of massive government investment in both the cost of actually implementing it, but also people to do it and plan it.

Openreach are receiving massive direct and indirect subsidies to provide FTTP infrastructure. Any organisation receiving government funding needs to be accountable to tax payers.

In reply to a post by Woolwich:

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Openreach aren't a charity, they are a business nor do they owe anyone FTTP or need to be held accountable by anybody bar their Customer ISP's. The only way we will blanket cover the UK with FTTP is by way of massive government investment in both the cost of actually implementing it, but also people to do it and plan it.

Openreach are receiving massive direct and indirect subsidies to provide FTTP infrastructure. Any organisation receiving government funding needs to be accountable to tax payers.

I am presuming that Openreach satisfy that accountability by fulfilling any contracts which they take on as a result of public funding. Where they are investing on their own account, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make a return based on their best judgement of the overall benefit to the business. If they have decided that they will get a better financial return investing elsewhere or a better benefit in terms of social accountability then that is where they will put their resources. That may not be palatable to you but it is how business works.

I'm Sorry but this is completely ignoring the simple facts...

EVEN IF OR has a contract to upgrade a couple of properties and do another 9 because the route to the same distribution point or underground chamber, it STILL makes FAR more sense to also do the other properties passed in the process as part of their national rollout at their own expense, because it is overall cheaper and faster than sending contractors back 2 , 3 or more times.

What you are suggesting is that it is not possible to allocate more than one cost centre to the work being done and that the paperwork is more costly than actual people on the ground, travel, scheduling and so on.

But hey - If OR can get PAID MORE to do it piecemeal and take longer, making more profit and dragging out the rollout for years longer than needed, then yes I understand they will most likely do that, UNLESS they are held accountable to provide the rollout as fast and economically as possible,

If they are NOT being held to this remit, then they are not offering the best value to us, the end users and tax payers - and are not fit for purpose.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sat 13-Nov-21 12:23:47)

and openereach would not be allowed to have done the rest of the estate at the same time even if they had know it was there (gainshare is done of premises and postcode and speeds as that would have been using public money to enable unpublic subisidy premises to be finre enabled using public gainshare funding --

knowledge

building an FTTP network with public funds is probably harder and more complicated that building one without - even more complicated when you can only build to specific UPRNS then its gets even more complicated and mish mash

For another viewpoint on how OpenReach are harming us, the customers and actually assisting BT in retaining customers, look at section 3, Page 7 onwards here:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026...

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

I'm Sorry but this is completely ignoring the simple facts...

EVEN IF OR has a contract to upgrade a couple of properties and do another 9 because the route to the same distribution point or underground chamber, it STILL makes FAR more sense to also do the other properties passed in the process as part of their national rollout at their own expense, because it is overall cheaper and faster than sending contractors back 2 , 3 or more times.

What you are suggesting is that it is not possible to allocate more than one cost centre to the work being done and that the paperwork is more costly than actual people on the ground, travel, scheduling and so on.

But hey - If OR can get PAID MORE to do it piecemeal and take longer, making more profit and dragging out the rollout for years longer than needed, then yes I understand they will most likely do that, UNLESS they are held accountable to provide the rollout as fast and economically as possible,

If they are NOT being held to this remit, then they are not offering the best value to us, the end users and tax payers - and are not fit for purpose.

I hear what you're saying, but Openreach don't have any obligation to provide the best value to end-users and tax payers. They only need to deliver what they are contracted to deliver, and in the case of public funded rollouts that is to provide whatever service the local authority agreed to the premises listed on the bid.

I blame Boris and Brexit!

In reply to a post by broadband66:

I blame Boris and Brexit!

You missed Covid and global warming.

I do totally get what your saying, and don’t totally disagree, however at some point the government have to set a limit, where the public fund, with private industry funding the rest. Also, as far as I’m aware for a lot, if not all council work there is a process which allows other altnets the opportunity to quote to provide the service and if they provided a better value offering they would receive the funding. By using OR the tax payers bill is probably reduce, as the amount of civils is likely to be significantly reduced.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

I blame Boris and Brexit!

Out means out and fibre cables get damaged if left outside so, no go

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

My view is that OpenReach are supposed to be running out Fibre broadly to the whole country

That might be your view but a more accurate view is that Openreach are doing what Openreach wants to do according to Openreach's plan.

logically should do it in the most efficient manner and use of resources and manpower

Which they probably are. Something about your property means it would take more resources or manpower than they can currently spare.

If we expect this road and area to be upgraded in the next 4 years, along with most of the country, then is makes sense to do a logical area like a whole postcode and tick it off as completed...

Why do you expect to be upgraded in the next four years? Has Openreach put that in writing?

It sucks, I'm sure, but you're taking this too personally. Openreach have done what they currently can in your area. They probably regret being unable to reach your property almost as much as you do. Unfortunately stuff happens and they have a timetable to keep. The resources needed to cable your particular property might be able to cable half a dozen other properties elsewhere.

Edited by Andrue (Sat 13-Nov-21 17:46:39)

Hi,

As per the first post, it is 11 out of 33 properties in a short cul-de-sac, all built at the same time that have been upgraded - leaving 22 NOT upgraded.

It is not just "my" property and I am not taking it at all personally, it is just a clearly inefficient way to manage a country wide rollout, to do it in tiny sections, revisiting each street many times.

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

It is not just "my" property and I am not taking it at all personally, it is just a clearly inefficient way to manage a country wide rollout, to do it in tiny sections, revisiting each street many times.

How do you know it's inefficient? Openreach do not - generally - employ idiots. They also have very extensive experience in rolling out network upgrades.

By comparison how much experience do you have in managing national infrastructure upgrades?

Well, maybe you would paint the fence at a number of houses by sending people to paint one panel at each property in turn, but I would get them to paint the whole fence at each property and then move on to the next.

That should tell you all you need to know.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sat 13-Nov-21 18:06:06)

Agree with all you’ve said there Andrue, and would add that there’s now fierce competition to supply FTTP in many locations.
All this tightens the purse strings more, and hones budgets, and makes the largesse of historical roll outs seem very unlikely to be repeated.

Don't reckon the historical roll out of the telephone network was anything like as fast as the tens of thousands of homes passed a week roll out of FTTP.

The OP was in plan and now has slipped. That suggests a problem that was discovered which we can only guess at. I've had my guess.

TechGuyUK

Having looked at the info you gave and the situation on Google maps I would suggest that the cul-de-sac has had an FTTPoD installation with 1 12 post CBT provided which gives the whole cul-de-sac FTTP. As this is all that was paid for the rest of the close will not have been provided.

However as the splitter would have been provided to serve the whole close any further FTTPoD orders are likely to be cheaper, only requiring a CBT.

If OR had provided FTTP to the whole area it would not have been an FTToD order.

Again if this was a subsidised build rather than FTTPoD any additional premises OR provided would have made it a commercial build and therefore OR would not have been entitled to subsidy funds. They are told which premises to build too by the subsidising body and these must not be included in OR or anyone else's commercial plans for the next x years when the subsidy is agreed. ( x depends on which subsidy scheme). This means any commercial build may be some years off ! ( However FTTPoD again should be cheaper for the reason above)

.

I have previously said below so your cul-de-sac is not an isolated case.

In reply to a post by dect:

I could provide you with a cul-de-sac not to far from me where half have FTTP (funded by BDUK) and half don't and the half that missed out were getting the same poor speed as the half that got upgraded, sadly nobody ever said these rollouts are done fairly.

Openreach have never said they will do every single property in the UK using their own money so if you and your neighbours really want FTTP sooner rather than later get yourselves a quote for either FTTPoD or a Community Fibre Partnership.

Hi Kitkat and thank you for a very inciteful and informative response - far more so than those received from official OR channels.

Some years ago, I got in touch with Ian Binks, who had visibility of OpenReach operations and he was extremely helpful in getting a cab activated for FTTC - OR staff and expertise had deemed it "uneconomical" to upgrade, but once it was in place, it was at installed capacity within 2 weeks and fully populated and at capacity within about 4 months. A 2nd larger cab was installed in addition to the original cab to meet demand. OR clearly do not have a great understanding of customer demand.

Ian's apparent replacement kasam.hussain, as well as rob.g.jones and richard.powley (all at OpenReach) have all come up with different explanations and excuses as to how the properties got upgraded and all come back with basically "go get funding" if you want FTTP - or "wait until 2024 and see if we get around to it"...

In any case, even if the costing for FTTPod was done accurately and took into account the existing infrastructure, for me to fund FTTPoD is going to cost more than it would have done to install it along with the rest of the road - and then maybe 11 other properties get the option for nothing, as has already happened 100m away in the same road. This is neither fair on myself - or indeed the cheapest way overall to provide the service, and is naturally deterring people from ordering FTTP who could already be paying customers IF the whole road have been provided for.

What has come to light is that the properties that have been upgraded had reliability issues with FTTC and they still seem to have them on FTTP. I get frequent disconnections and resyncs like my neighbours despite a Draytek router on a 15cm cable directly into the master socket with no other internal wiring at all, powered via a UPS... No one seems interested to look at the root cause of the problem and individually we all get threatened with the OR charges for getting an engineer to come out and look at the problem, IF the ISP will even entertain the idea, which the ones at the cheaper end of the market avoid at all cost.

At the end of the day - and from comments repeated on here, having a private company with shareholders expecting profits and dividends is never going to be the most cost effective way to get a full fibre rollout and that comes back to my point that OpenReach is simply not fit for purpose.

The irony is that I would stand more chance of getting FTTP to my whole street, if I lived in a moderately remote village that suited the OR rollout and marketing machine - or in a densely populated area that was more attractive to other service providers. But living somewhere in between with an "acceptable" speed over 30Mbps regardless of reliability and two thirds of the street falls into the "OpenReach says no" black hole.

The level of frustration among the people living here, seeing fibre being selectively installed all around the surrounding area in just about every road over the last year with no consideration of peoples individual needs is immense. There was even a door to door Ipsos-Mori survey asking every household what they used their Internet access for in great detail (with a telephone follow up interview and online session) - I don't know who funded that, they could not tell me - but asking end users what they need from Broadband in 2021, after 10+ years of councils doing the same countrywide is just a complete waste of time, effort and critically money that could have gone towards installing what we need - a country wide fibre infrastructure, which would provide for any practical speed, at a range of prices from different ISPs and customers could make their choice and market forces would bring prices down, just like 20+ years ago with the original 0.5 / 1 / 2Mbps ADSL roll out..

It should go without saying that fast and reliable broadband is allowing more people to work from home, reducing contact with others and in turn saving lives as well as reducing our carbon footprint, road congestion and fossil fuel use. I would expect the power requirements of FTTP to be lower overall, although the power consumption is moved from the FTTC Cabs back to the end of the Fibre at the exchange or similar - but some of the 400W or so per cabinet across 90,000+ cabs will no doubt be saved once we get to full FTTP, as well as being able to tidy up our streets with the ultimate removal of the Cabs and associated PCPs one day.

While my road is a sample of 1 in 1.8 Million post codes, i doubt it is the only similar example of a minority FTTP rollout. And when we consider the 1.8 million figure and how many repeated visits will be made, the extra costs, charges and the additional environmental impact of those journeys (like I said before, 3 vans and 6 OR staff to add two properties a couple of weeks ago) - then there is more to consider than just OR lining their share holders pockets, not just the damage to our economy and finances during a drawn out process - but also the damage OR are doing to the environment by making many trips to do piecemeal installations in this way.

It is time OR were made to do the RIGHT thing for the many - not the most profitable thing for the lucky few.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sat 13-Nov-21 23:41:49)

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

At the end of the day - and from comments repeated on here, having a private company with shareholders expecting profits and dividends is never going to be the most cost effective way to get a full fibre rollout and that comes back to my point that OpenReach is simply not fit for purpose.

Unless you have access to the full data about costs involved (like any local provisioning issues or capacity problems further upstream) that sort of comment is only an internet sound-bite which looks good to the man in the saloon bar and is the sort of simplistic analysis which always finds easy black-and-white answers to the real world grey. Perhaps you can shed some light by providing some further real-world, commercially confidential data so that we can know that you are providing insight rather than riding a hobby-horse.

The conclusion drawn is from previous comments posted here stating OpenReach is in the business of making a profit and fulfilling contracts to supply - NOT providing the most cost effective and prompt rollout of Fibre for the country.

I am however, not in the habit of breaking confidentiality agreements.

If you cannot grasp the need and benefit of providing a country wide fibre rollout as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and with minimal environmental impact - rather than lining the pockets of shareholders - then I really do not think you have understood the point of the thread at all.

On the one hand, OP accused Openreach of "Profiteering" in the post subject. On the other hand, they are accusing Openreach of doing their rollout in an inefficient manner - i.e. it could be done at lower cost.

To quote from Dire Straits: "Two men say they're Jesus: one of them must be wrong"

I am sorry - but if you do not read the post, you will not grasp the point being made.

There is an obvious efficiency and benefit to use manpower present in an area to upgrade a larger number of properties at the same time, compared to revisiting the same area over and over.

The cost per property is reduced by doing this, the time and environmental impact per property is reduced by doing this.

By seeking funding to upgrade even a single road of 33 properties in many visits in a piecemeal fashion, it makes the rollout take longer, and cost more overall.

A longer rollout at greater cost provides OpenReach with more profit but no more benefit to the country.

By dragging ut the overall rollout to take longer, in the manner in which it is presently being done costs more. More wages, more funding, more environmental damage, and for OpenReach and their contractors - More profit.

Does that explain it more clearly?

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sun 14-Nov-21 10:58:59)

Lets be honest here and cut out all the rubbish about rollouts not being done the way you think they should be.

At the end of the day you are just miffed that some houses up the road from yourself are now able to order FTTP and you can't, that's the bottom line here isn't it. Forget the rest as it's all irrelevant. If you want to order FTTP yourself right now then put your hand in your own pocket and order FTTPoD (just like you have been told by numerous people at Openreach).

However, i suspect from reading your comments you have no intention of actually paying for FTTP and want it installed for nothing in the rest of your street by Openreach. I'm quite sure Openreach will do that, but they'll do it at a time they see fit, for reasons only they know. You've absolutely no idea what is involved in the planning of such networks or the decisions behind their roll outs, so as i said above, pay yourself or wait for your area to be upgraded.

As there are other companies also installing FTTP then Openreach will deploy their resources where they need to for commercial reasons, which obviously they are not going to divulge with yourself, no matter how loud you scream about it. It's their money not yours. I'm also quite sure that Openreach would love to snap their fingers and have FTTP everywhere yesterday, but this is the real world and it is going to take time.

Remember there is also a much bigger picture to all of this, one that is way way bigger than your street, estate and town.

Edited by TheInstaller (Sun 14-Nov-21 11:39:51)

Wow - so many assumptions and unjustified comments in one post...

While I could easily order FTTPoD for myself and a few other properties would no doubt benefit, I have at no point said this is about ME getting FTTP - and indeed the overall tone of the thread is, if it was read, about a country wide and efficient FTTP roll out - for everyone.

Being able to get fibre for myself only increases the digital divide and perpetuates the current dis-jointed rollout, and the inefficiencies seen here and across the country.

You might be unable to see the bigger country wide issue here, with increased costs and delays perpetuating an endless cycle of a bit of funding and a bit of rollout and a bit more profit, but I am addressing the bigger issue here.

It is pretty obvious I think, that I i were looking to get my property upgraded for free, this is hardly the approach I would take.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sun 14-Nov-21 12:06:08)

You need to stop playing mental gymnastics. At the end of the day, Openreach planners/bean counters aren't stupid, they would have had their reasons for not rolling out fibre to your property (for now at least) - which you will most likely never find out. As difficult as it might be, probably a good idea to move on and stop tying yourself into knots over this.

TechGuyUK

You are right it is inefficient, however it was an attempt to provide service to a limited amount of people who wanted to pay extra for it ( Jump the queue if you like).

If OR had just run to their efficient plan the Cul-de-sac that s annoying you would not have been done and you wouldn't be annoyed.

There were a limited number of small teams doing these small builds whilst the main areas were being done. OR even put the price up to restrict the demand whilst they built up their resource levels. People had to pay quite a lot to counterbalance the inefficiencies.

There is a new scheme starting so that where the infrastructure already exists, Like in your situation, the cost to jump the queue drops towards the actual cost to do the work. There are still people complaining this is too much.

The alternative is to wait for the OR plans to be delivered and not pay a penny extra. Whatever OR do they will have people complaining that they are at the back of the queue.

The rest of your close will be done with the OR efficient plan that you want! unless someone stumps up the extra to 'jump the queue. ( If all 12 on a CBT wanted it it comes out at around £120 each).

the inference of your thread is very clear - your not happy the rest of the road has been done and you havent -- that a commercial reality - whether you like it or not -- , any operator has be very specific un connecting any premises via public money to ensure A it deliver what the requirement and B it does not then to commerical build the next bit using the public money bit as that could be see as an abuse of public money -- . this siuation will be more common than it already is and infererring bad management or profiteerting smacks "why have they not done me" clearly signpost your intention

In reply to a post by kitcat:

There were a limited number of small teams doing these small builds whilst the main areas were being done. OR even put the price up to restrict the demand whilst they built up their resource levels. People had to pay quite a lot to counterbalance the inefficiencies.

Had wondered why the FoD pricing had gone up substantially between 2018/19 and 2020/21 to the point where the minimum 'floor' price was averaging around £8K irrespective.

Will be interesting to see how the FoD 'near network' trial goes in the coming months. Presumably resource levels with OR are such now that they can sustain the pace of the native FTTP rollout as well as dedicating sufficient resources to FoD builds. I recall in the early days they were limited to I think it was 20 per month nationally or some such figure. Must be substantially more capacity now for them to announce this aggressive new pricing model under the trial.

It's stupid though. Because at £8k floor for FTTP, you may as well get a leased line and just share the link between other properties. Leased lines are heavily subsidised on install costs, so unlikely to cost as much to install.

With a good deal of around £350/mth for a leased line service for a fully uncontended 1gbps service. Using typical OR contention ratios of provisioning ~80mbps (2.488/1.244gbps GPON / 32 = 77.75/38.875 per split), so a 1gbps leased line could hold 12 properties with the same contention, thus costing each person under £30. Or upgrade to a 10GbE leased line for ~£450/mth and effectively put either 10x more properties on or upgrade the '12' to 777mbps uncontended symmetrical.

If you're doing a Community Fibre Partnership, it's a no-brainer to do it via a shared leased line instead. You get a full SLA and fully symmetric low latency service to boot and depending on how many share the cost, cheaper too.

No offence, really I'm not trying to be rude but you don't have a clue. Not in the slightest.

Can you explain to me why you think it's more efficient to stop at the end of a street than it is to stop halfway up a street.
What's the magical price of infrastructure OpenReach have that mean ends of streets are cheaper?

You have been told multiple times in this thread that when they were in your street they will have installed enough capacity to come back later and complete it. It's all just ducts and poles like everywhere else.

If it's an 8 hour job to do the rest of your street what does it matter if they do it now or in a year? It's still 8 hours work. There's no extra work required by coming back later.

OpenReach have contracts to fulfill, like any business does.
The chances are your street was not in their plans. They are rolling out FTTP at an astonishingly fast rate.
They completed over 300,000 homes in October alone. How many properties have you rolled out FTTP to?

Your street is either BDUK funded or was an FTTPoD build.
With both Openreach are only paid to do specific properties.
BDUK usually don't know their a*** from their elbow. You wouldn't be the 1st and won't be the last to be told it wasn't their funding when it definitely was.
The fact the properties that have been covered had lower estimates that were below 30Mb/s pretty much confirms it was BDUK or some kind of public funding/voucher work.

You've had a number of users answer each of your points politely explaining some of the regulation that prevents OpenReach just rolling out Willy nilly and the reasoning behind specific contracts.
You just keep repeating the same complaints about inefficiencies when you don't have a clue how much any of it costs.

OpenReach are a company with share holders and have a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of those share holders. That's to make them money.
Being inefficient doesn't make money.
OpenReach have a targeted "cost per premises passed" for FTTP. Covering the other 22 properties on your street may currently cost more than that target.
It's inefficient to do it "just because you are in the street anyway". Each job is unique, is surveyed and costed.

OpenReach have been paid by someone to do the 11 properties, that's a certainty.

You haven't a clue what's going on under the ground either. You can't possibly know what ducts are blocked. You can't possibly know how much fibre capacity OpenReach have in the area and how much it would cost to bring more in. You seem to think you know better though.
You just sounds like someone with sour grapes that they got missed.

Edited by j0hn83 (Sun 14-Nov-21 13:36:40)

Sounds great in theory, but your are presuming a few things which may not bear out in reality:

1) your excess construction costs are nil for a leased line. Only true if you are effectively on-net and there is sufficient capacity near to you from one of the large providers and/or where they are willing to write this off over a three year deal. Outside of major urban metro areas the ECCs for leased circuits can be hefty.

2) Whomever your agreeing to purchase that leased line understands that it is going to effectively be used as a sublet circuit for one to effectively act as an ISP. Could be especially problematic with Openreach tails.

3) Actual monthly charges of leased lines vary massively depending on geography/location and capacity. getting a good deal in central London is easier than getting one in rural Suffolk for example, as I can attest.

4) The costs and ease to reticulate some form of connection to your neighbours etc are not insubstantial and there are ongoing run costs which are not zero. This is usually the deal breaker with these sorts of notions.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

If you're doing a Community Fibre Partnership, it's a no-brainer to do it via a shared leased line instead. You get a full SLA and fully symmetric low latency service to boot and depending on how many share the cost, cheaper too.

Openreach now add an extra charge for using their EAD links to aggregate FTTP to other properties.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/08/openre...

Getting a single leased line to feed a dozen or so other properties is not a cheap option.
It may initially seem a "no brainer" but the setup cost, equipment cost and running costs make it a very expensive solution.
That's without someone like OR overbuilding your bespoke network.

Sorry "J0hn83" but you are not in a position to judge what I do or do not know about.

I don't have to install FTTP to know that it is more productive and cheaper to install a block of say 33 properties that are fed via one underground chamber at the start of the road than it is to make, say 33 visits to do the same work - a silly example but it illustrates the point. You seem to forget travel time and the overheads of planning and starting each and every individual job - as well as the management of many smaller jobs.

To argue that "there's no extra work required by coming back later" is clearly ridiculous and overly simplistic..

OpenReach's targeted cost per premises passed of £250 is half or less that anyone else is looking to achieve, so it is hard to see how they can come close to that unless they greatly improve how the rollout is done.

As for knowing what is going on underground - I have had OR deny and lie to me in the past when a 400pair cable had been damaged by a contractor and OR re-routed the cable, making it 1Km longer and taking a whole estate from 5 - 6Mb ADSL down to 1 - 2Mb. OR said it never happened, but the whole estate lost phone and broadband for 3 days and I have met and spoken to the actual guys who did the work.

When my previous cab was put on its own phase of the fttc rollout, OR claimed its change of plan was due to a "New housing development". Said housing development was 5 years from breaking ground and the cab did not have enough capacity for the existing houses it was serving.

So if I have doubts about what OR tell me and how good their information is, it is not without good reason.

I use the example of doing a whole street as a general example - as it also relates to the general layout of the infrastructure in a lot of cases and is easy for people to grasp. A small street is also generally one or two postcodes and OR provide a postcode based checker. OBVIOUSLY this does not wholly translate to the underground infrastructure, but either way, it is far more efficient to do a lot of premises in an area, than to do a small number over multiple repeated visits. Travel costs - more small jobs cost more than fewer larger ones. It is the basic economies of scale, they apply at both small and larger ends of the spectrum.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sun 14-Nov-21 14:22:54)

There is information within the industry we are not privy to.

I e.g. found out cityfibre are rolling out by exchange area and post code data, the part of my street that has cityfibre live has a different post code to me (20m or so away), my part of the street is at least a year away (from when I was told a few months back), I expected them to rollout in a spiral pattern from the city centre outwards as they already have their backhaul connected there, instead they going out like a star pattern and some one reported on another website the areas towards the outer of the city are stalled due to awaiting backhaul connection. My street even has fibre already laid but not been used in the consumer rollout as of yet.

Since I made my post a couple of days ago I think the reason the work might be stalled in my city now might be due to that.

So it isnt just openreach, its also VM, and altnets that have these seemingly strange rollout decisions.

I expect also permission objections and approvals may have an impact as well, a council may well even be able to influence a rollout by approving certain streets above others.

Openreach specifically are also politically impacted, they have areas subsidised by government schemes and is a possible reason why so many rural areas are getting Openreach FTTP, and the 11th biggest city in the country isn't in their plans.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 14-Nov-21 14:32:15)

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

the inference of your thread is very clear - your not happy the rest of the road has been done and you havent -- that a commercial reality - whether you like it or not -- , any operator has be very specific un connecting any premises via public money to ensure A it deliver what the requirement and B it does not then to commerical build the next bit using the public money bit as that could be see as an abuse of public money -- . this siuation will be more common than it already is and infererring bad management or profiteerting smacks "why have they not done me" clearly signpost your intention

This is interesting as it would suggest those immediately next to a public money build are at less likelihood of getting a commercial rollout due to the risk of the company been found risking abusing public money?

Whatever is going on, there is nothing wrong with been unhappy, and I expect many in the same position would be also, its very easy to be in a picked area to mock those who are not, so I dont support the bad remarks been given.

In reply to a post by TechGuyUK:

I don't have to install FTTP to know that it is more productive and cheaper to install a block of say 33 properties that are fed via one underground chamber at the start of the road than it is to make, say 33 visits to do the same work - a silly example but it illustrates the point. You seem to forget travel time and the overheads of planning and starting each and every individual job - as well as the management of many smaller jobs.

To argue that "there's no extra work required by coming back later" is clearly ridiculous and overly simplistic..

You're just wrong on that.

To assume doing it all at the same time must be cheaper and easier is being overly simplistic.
It will take the same number of man hours to complete the job no matter when they do it.

Rollout methods, technologies and efficiencies improve over time as the rollout progresses so it will almost certainly be CHEAPER to come back later and complete it.

OpenReach's targeted cost per premises passed of £250 is half or less that anyone else is looking to achieve, so it is hard to see how they can come close to that unless they greatly improve how the rollout is done.

The difference is Openreach already have a nationwide duct and pole network. It's considerably cheaper for Openreach to deploy FTTP than it is for other networks for that very reason.
Many other networks need to dig when Openreach don't, or need to pay Openreach to share their ducts and poles.

As for knowing what is going on underground - I have had OR deny and lie to me in the past when a 400pair cable had been damaged by a contractor and OR re-routed the cable, making it 1Km longer and taking a whole estate from 5 - 6Mb ADSL down to 1 - 2Mb. OR said it never happened, but the whole estate lost phone and broadband for 3 days and I have met and spoken to the actual guys who did the work.

When my previous cab was put on its own phase of the fttc rollout, OR claimed its change of plan was due to a "New housing development". Said housing development was 5 years from breaking ground and the cab did not have enough capacity for the existing houses it was serving.

So if I have doubts about what OR tell me and how good their information is, it is not without good reason.

Those comments tell me nothing about the FTTP rollout but just confirm that you have a giant Openreach shaped chip on your shoulder from past experiences.

A small street is also generally one or two postcodes and OR provide a postcode based checker.

They do not provide a postcode based checker.

Openreach provide an address based checker. You simply enter the postcode to narrow it down to the specific address.
You cannot check availability with a postcode alone.
Some postcodes cover many miles, over a number of cabinets and sometimes a number of exchanges.

but either way, it is far more efficient to do a lot of premises in an area, than to do a small number over multiple repeated visits. Travel costs - more small jobs cost more than fewer larger ones. It is the basic economies of scale, they apply at both small and larger ends of the spectrum

It will take the exact same number of man hours to complete the job no matter when they do it.
They aren't spending 5 days traveling to your street.
They finished at the end of 1 particular day. It makes no difference if they come back the next day or a year later.
They are not driving about all day and spending 5 minutes at each job.

At the end of the day someone has paid Openreach to cover the 11 properties.
While they were doing that job they will have surveyed the street and brought enough capacity to do the rest when they return.

If I ordered FTTPoD for my property you seem to think that Openreach should automatically do all 167 properties on my street at the same time, no matter what the cost to do each property is.
They would not.
They divert the minimum resources necessary to do the contracted work while the other staff get on with a nationwide rollout.
They pull enough fibre through the ducts (or along poles) so they don't need to repeat that particular bit of work.

You're making assumptions without a single cost in front of you. You have no idea how much it would cost to do the remaining 22 properties.
Doing them just because you are in the area isn't all that is involved in efficiencies and economies of scale. That's oversimplification to the extreme.
If it was really that simple, they would start at 1 end of a town and go street by street by street until the whole town was done. No rollout would every have an endpoint until complete.

300,000+ properties passed last month alone. I think Openreach know what they are doing better than you do.

The most recent KPI's from their quarterly results and the last months build progress put them now past (or very near) 6 million premises passed.

Only another 19 million to go to meet the target in 5 years... so they need to accelerate past an average of 310,000 P.P. per month to meet that. Thats going to be some going.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

It's stupid though. Because at £8k floor for FTTP, you may as well get a leased line and just share the link between other properties. Leased lines are heavily subsidised on install costs, so unlikely to cost as much to install.

There is no "subsidy" on leased line installations - they are entirely commercial propositions. You pay a hefty fee for the first 3 years service, which normally covers the build cost (more expensive builds will have ECCs). Beyond that, you continue to pay a high monthly fee and there's a lot of commercial cream to be made from that. It's the razor blade model if you like.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

If you're doing a Community Fibre Partnership, it's a no-brainer to do it via a shared leased line instead. You get a full SLA and fully symmetric low latency service to boot and depending on how many share the cost, cheaper too.

I think you'll find almost nobody does it that way, and for good reasons.

1. Of your cluster of (say) 12 properties, the users won't get *any* SLA: if they have any contract at all, it will be with their neighbour who buys the leased line. Nor will they get any consumer rights, Ofcom rights etc.

2. They almost certainly won't be able to run fibre directly to their properties, hence it would have to be shared using wifi or similar.

3. It's unlikely that 12 adjacent properties will all agree to take the service, so it will have to be shared over a wider area.

4. The person with the leased line has the contract with the ISP and is bound to pay for the line, but has to collect money from the individual users. They'll probably need to set up a limited company to cover their liability, and insurance if they are doing any installation work on the neighbouring properties.

5. The person with the leased line will be liable for any abuse which takes place from their subscribers.

So we are all wrong then, apart from you of course

Now that you have said your piece about how bad Openreach are what do you now hope to achieve from this thread?

Starting with the most useful response first...

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

1) your excess construction costs are nil for a leased line. Only true if you are effectively on-net and there is sufficient capacity near to you from one of the large providers and/or where they are willing to write this off over a three year deal. Outside of major urban metro areas the ECCs for leased circuits can be hefty.

ECCs are no different between FTTP and leased lines, so the point is moot.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

2) Whomever your agreeing to purchase that leased line understands that it is going to effectively be used as a sublet circuit for one to effectively act as an ISP. Could be especially problematic with Openreach tails.

Not really. You can run what you want on any leased line. Most people run an overlay network either by MPLS or SD-WAN, and you can do whatever the heck you want on it. Even on broadband. And leased lines are often 'sublet' even in office buildings, particularly when offices are sublet. How do you think the likes of WeWork works?

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

3) Actual monthly charges of leased lines vary massively depending on geography/location and capacity. getting a good deal in central London is easier than getting one in rural Suffolk for example, as I can attest.

Of course, but then again I'm based in London and leaning much more to metronets. But I know of several private networks on large estates and trust-owned properties that have a private network and a set of leased lines providing access to all properties on the estate, even in the darkest outreaches of rural Britain.

But the same model could easily apply to terraced houses, bigger blocks and such like.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

4) The costs and ease to reticulate some form of connection to your neighbours etc are not insubstantial and there are ongoing run costs which are not zero. This is usually the deal breaker with these sorts of notions.

Of course not, but this is easily amortised over even the 3-5 year leased line deal. But in fact you'd be using either Mikrotik or Ubiquiti Edgemax gear in this scenario realistically which is not at all expensive. And there are private network companies that would install and manage the whole affair for you.

I know this, because I did exactly that: easynetworks lit up 2x 1gbps Openreach EADs from fibre that was already installed to the main building on an estate in rural West Sussex (one using BTW and the other TTB, via separate paths), then hooked both up to 2 EdgeMax routers (£155 each) linked to a Ubiquiti OLT (£786) and an and trenched their own PONs to all the properties with each property having a Ubiquiti ONU (£35.11 each). Each of the 22 properties in this case pays £35/mth to easynetworks and everything is managed. Trenching costs of the PON and all equipment costs are all amortised in the contract. The contract for each property is 5 years of course, but no one argued as it was either this or 1-2mbps ADSL.

In fact, most properties were so happy they independently got easynetworks to further install and manage a UniFi system in their homes as well.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

There is no "subsidy" on leased line installations - they are entirely commercial propositions. You pay a hefty fee for the first 3 years service, which normally covers the build cost (more expensive builds will have ECCs). Beyond that, you continue to pay a high monthly fee and there's a lot of commercial cream to be made from that. It's the razor blade model if you like.

...but ECCs are the same as FTTP on Demand or a CFP.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

1. Of your cluster of (say) 12 properties, the users won't get *any* SLA: if they have any contract at all, it will be with their neighbour who buys the leased line. Nor will they get any consumer rights, Ofcom rights etc.

Says who? Surely that's an agreement between the company running the line and the other homes?

And anyone technical enough to run a leased line and associated equipment can quite easily provide support for it. But in such cases, it'd normally be outsourced to the company that lays the private network, such as easynetworks I quoted above.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

2. They almost certainly won't be able to run fibre directly to their properties, hence it would have to be shared using wifi or similar.

Why not? If it's an estate it'd probably be managed by a trust. If a cul-de-sac it'd be owned either by a single freeholder or commonhold so they can do what they want. And if it's adopted by the council, it's actually much easier than you think to get permission from the council to run your own cables in a public carriageway - after all, councils tend to respect their residents' wishes.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

3. It's unlikely that 12 adjacent properties will all agree to take the service, so it will have to be shared over a wider area.

It depends on the situation. There are many, many situations where properties are just leaseholders or tenants on a larger property, and this is purely a freehold or commonhold play.

However, in the context of a Community Fibre Partnership where they'd have to do that anyway, the issue is moot. I know most would much prefer to use a private company that works for them than use Openturd to herd such cats.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

4. The person with the leased line has the contract with the ISP and is bound to pay for the line, but has to collect money from the individual users. They'll probably need to set up a limited company to cover their liability, and insurance if they are doing any installation work on the neighbouring properties.

In such situations it'd usually be a freeholder and leaseholders or landlords and tenants. And even flats. There'd be a company, and if necessary start a company to run this matter as it's hardly a problem to run a company. But in most cases it'd be outsourced to a private network company who'd install the leased line, wire up the properties and provide the service to all the properties.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

5. The person with the leased line will be liable for any abuse which takes place from their subscribers.

If they're a CP and declared as a public ISP. But why would they need to be? Even so, this is trivial.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Openreach now add an extra charge for using their EAD links to aggregate FTTP to other properties.

If you're an altnet and a customer of Openreach's with the ability to order PIA products or Dark Fibre, yes. But you wouldn't be.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

If you're doing a Community Fibre Partnership, it's a no-brainer to do it via a shared leased line instead. You get a full SLA and fully symmetric low latency service to boot and depending on how many share the cost, cheaper too.

Openreach now add a rather large charge for using their leased lines to aggregate FTTP to other properties.

I don't know anyone who's ever done what you think is a no brainer.
Who's digging this fibre to the neighbours? Joe public isn't allowed to dig on the pavement. Where are you getting an IPV4 block in 2021?
Who's doing all the legal work? Contracts, liability, billing etc.
Who's paying for and maintaining all the CPE required?
What do your neighbours do when the host is away and something goes wrong?

The cost to setup something like that is pretty eye watering.
At any point that investment can be flushed away by being overbuilt by a full fibre provider.

It's a stupid idea.
There are much cheaper and more logical ways to go about bringing fibre to a not spot.

zzing

no one in there right mind would do a CFP or something like it using a leased line its a recipe for distaster, one persons responsible, whos managing the traffic , how do you agree the bandwitch , what are they paying for an get



i can think of about 20 reasons why you would not use a leased line

In reply to a post by kitcat:

I would suggest that the cul-de-sac has had an FTTPoD installation with 1 12 port CBT provided

If it was a FTTPoD installation and OR had installed a 12 port CBT I would have expected only 10 properties enabled not 11 (as the OP says) to comply with the 120% capacity rule you have previously spoken about on here.

Edited by deleted (Mon 15-Nov-21 16:14:03)

As I understand it, the 120% capacity rule is for splitters, not CBTs. And it's not always followed anyway.

The idea of DIY sharing of a leased line bewteen neighbours is, like J0hn83 says, a non starter - for many reasons.

The apparent costing may look doable on paper, but it is a naïve, idealistic and simplistic argument.

Even if the equipment were cheap and readily available, which it will be to some people, the real problems with the idea are more basic:

First and foremost, Money - sharing the cost of anything between friends, family let alone neighbours causes friction - the "Well I didn't have any wine" after a meal is all too familiar.

Distribution - the actual sharing is going to rely on a wireless solution one way or another in reality for most properties and this will cause issues and add costs both in installation and support and most likely speed and reliability as well.

The "What if" factor - What if the host moves house, what if someone drops out, what if the host changes their mind about sharing, what if someone is doing illegal file sharing or being used to host a DDOS attack... the list is endless.

Local or community sharing of a service like this is just not the same as sharing within a household or an office environment.

They may not realise it, but end users actually like and need independence of support and a choice of provider, and like Electricity, Gas and Water - we simply don't go around sharing it with our neighbours like that.

Trust - who really wants to put their internet access in the hands of fred 3 doors down? Are they watching your traffic, monitoring your dns? Yes all these can be addressed - but it is just not worth the hassle.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Mon 15-Nov-21 12:25:50)

I think it often follows the number of premises served by the copper DP , though not always

zingg

However, in the context of a Community Fibre Partnership where they'd have to do that anyway, the issue is moot. I know most would much prefer to use a private company that works for them than use Openturd to herd such cats.


clearly you nothing about CFP either !!!!!!