MDU AltNets reuse connectorised ez-bend fibre from PoE?

It would be great where multiple AltNets such as Hyperoptic and Cityfibre are available that they can either reuse the existing Point of Entry unit outside each apartment or can reconnect the existing connectorised ez-bend fibre that goes between the Point of entry enclosure to the point where the new provider can plug their ONT into.

Assuming this isn't possible at present? Would be good way to reduce amount of work needed when switching to a different AltNet where they haven't supplied before. Why not reuse what could be compatible anyway without the unnecessary waste of extra ez-bend style fibre having to be installed?

This has always been the issue with switching between infrastructure providers.

Providers will always want their fibre cable and ONT left in place when the service is deactivated to make life easy should someone want it reactivated. There is also the question of ownership as the cabling and ONT remains the property of the installing infrastructure provider.

I’ve always felt this is the sort of thing a building owner should get involved with, and what the service charge should cover. CityFibre, Openreach etc. drop their fibre off in the basement and the building internal network takes it the rest of the way - a four core fibre blown to each unit for ease of future maintenance and the fibre providers patch into it. It’s not a good use of anyone’s time to build 2-3 sets of horizontal cabling.

It's been tried. It failed.

There was a company which installed such internal cabling, but they wanted payment from the service providers to access the asset. The service providers, not surprisingly, refused. (I can't remember the name of the company).

In any case, the operators want to have end-to-end control over the service, since the cost of sending out an engineer to investigate a fault is very high. Every push-fit connector is a potential point of failure.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's been tried. It failed.


In any case, the operators want to have end-to-end control over the service, since the cost of sending out an engineer to investigate a fault is very high. Every push-fit connector is a potential point of failure.

plus end to end security.

As for the op, i'd try and keep the ont close to the entry of the flat. and just have one set of cabling from there.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's been tried. It failed.

There was a company which installed such internal cabling, but they wanted payment from the service providers to access the asset. The service providers, not surprisingly, refused. (I can't remember the name of the company).

In any case, the operators want to have end-to-end control over the service, since the cost of sending out an engineer to investigate a fault is very high. Every push-fit connector is a potential point of failure.

Can you imagine having an unlocked fibre patch panel in the basement where any provider could do the patching. 😎

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's been tried. It failed.

There was a company which installed such internal cabling, but they wanted payment from the service providers to access the asset. The service providers, not surprisingly, refused. (I can't remember the name of the company).

In any case, the operators want to have end-to-end control over the service, since the cost of sending out an engineer to investigate a fault is very high. Every push-fit connector is a potential point of failure.

Can you imagine having an unlocked fibre patch panel in the basement where any provider could do the patching. 😎

and you found out somebody's ont serial and isp pw............

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

But many would complain for sure.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

Isn't that what we really had with LLU before the days of altnets. If it was to be implemented with full fibre we know who would be king again.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

But many would complain for sure.

Isn’t that a textbook definition of a monopoly? Unless of course it was state owned with all the downsides and inefficiencies that would cause.

But with one whole, singly own fibre network, you wouldn’t have where we are now … altnets picking and choosing where they roll out … based on where they think they can make the quickest buck.
And in my scenario, there is still choice for the customers, with different networks available if they choose to put links in to ‘the exchange’.

No overloaded poles (you watch this get worse)
Consistency in the provision of network.

The current ‘Thatchers Dream’ approach, of allowing business to dictate which areas get enabled, and which don’t hasn’t exactly nailed the widespread availability of FTTP has it ?

You could argue the former incumbent could have moved faster and been ahead of the altnets. The altnets only appeared due to the requirement not being satisified by either OR or VM, and they could get the borrowing (cheaper money before covid!)

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

What ian72 said .

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

True, I work for a huge company, and smaller outfits are more nimble, but they also don’t have the scale or bank trust to borrow the large sums. I don’t blame OR for running a business, but they did have plenty of time with no competition when they could have done some fibre. I recall Ben Verwaayan (BT Group CEO at the time) being interviewed and frustrated they as a group were not installing fibre.

As current CEO has said, the future doesn’t mean OR will be everywhere, this is no longer the state owned universal service. Possible in 10/15/20 years that OR are relieved of such onerous terms by regulator. We will have to wait and see!

Edited by jchamier (Tue 22-Jul-25 20:06:52)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by ian72:

Much easier for a small company with venture funding to start rolling out in small areas than it is for a behemoth like BT/OpenReach to build a business case and get it signed off by everyone (including being agreed by the regulator). You also have to consider that anything BT build is regulated by Ofcom which makes that business case even harder to build. The altnets generally aren't regulated and can move faster but only cover very small areas in comparison (they can cherry pick for the best return).

True, I work for a huge company, and smaller outfits are more nimble, but they also don’t have the scale or bank trust to borrow the large sums. I don’t blame OR for running a business, but they did have plenty of time with no competition when they could have done some fibre. I recall Ben Verwaayan (BT Group CEO at the time) being interviewed and frustrated they as a group were not installing fibre.

As current CEO has said, the future doesn’t mean OR will be everywhere, this is no longer the state owned universal service. Possible in 10/15/20 years that OR are relieved of such onerous terms by regulator. We will have to wait and see!

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Edited by Iniltous (Tue 22-Jul-25 20:24:49)

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

But many would complain for sure.

So that would be an Open network with a wide Reach? And the Links to the central exchange would be on Cables?

Anyway, regardless of the technology used, the network still has to be built and paid for. While OR had a national copper network, there was no business case for them to deploy fibre: they would only be moving their existing copper customers onto fibre. The end users would be happy with a better service, but there would be almost zero incremental revenue.

It took the altnets threatening to poach their customers to kick them into action.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Thatcher was kicked out in 1990. Of course decisions she made were wrong; high speed broadband only started in 1999 with NTL's cable modem service, and BT Group ADSL and this site sprung up around 2002. Technology changes faster than governments.

OR (after structural separation from group) were in charge... like IBM not using the 386 processor and sticking with the 286 allowed Compaq to overtake them, the cable firms, and now Alt Nets have run rings around OR in delivering what consumers wanted to pay for. Investment cases of 2020 were easier than now in 2025, budgets are tight for smaller firms, cost of borrowing much higher, so Alt Nets are now more of a risk of course.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It took the altnets threatening to poach their customers to kick them into action.

along with cellular taking phone revenue from the cable TV companies, so they pushed hard into high speed internet....

change is normal, it is ignoring change and resting on laurals that means you get statements such as that from current BT Group CEO expecting to no longer be the "de facto" network operator.

Missed opportunities for OR.

How many of those altnets have yet made a profit? I suspect not many. The business model is different for OR who need to show a profit to their shareholders with a relatively quick ROI whereas altnets tend to be able to go much longer and their investors may just be waiting for the altnet to be swallowed up by someone larger to get their money back.

In reply to a post by ian72:

How many of those altnets have yet made a profit? I suspect not many.

Lets hope they have a 30 year business plan with Japanese investors then. We can all pick holes in either side, I suspect this topic has run across thinkbroadband many times.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Thatcher was kicked out in 1990. Of course decisions she made were wrong; high speed broadband only started in 1999 with NTL's cable modem service, and BT Group ADSL and this site sprung up around 2002. Technology changes faster than governments.

I remember reading about adsl back in 97!

i joined adslguide back in Thu 08-Mar-01 18:50:31

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Thatcher was kicked out in 1990. Of course decisions she made were wrong; high speed broadband only started in 1999 with NTL's cable modem service, and BT Group ADSL and this site sprung up around 2002. Technology changes faster than governments.

OR (after structural separation from group) were in charge... like IBM not using the 386 processor and sticking with the 286 allowed Compaq to overtake them, the cable firms, and now Alt Nets have run rings around OR in delivering what consumers wanted to pay for. Investment cases of 2020 were easier than now in 2025, budgets are tight for smaller firms, cost of borrowing much higher, so Alt Nets are now more of a risk of course.

Irrespective of Thatcher being given her marching orders by her own ministers , the Government stayed the same until 1997 and what it demonstrated regardless was the heavy hand of the state , its misguided to think BT can operate as a truly independent company, and as far as Alt Nets running rings around BT , given the enormous leg up they get , peppercorn physical infrastructure rental , co-mingling in BT exchanges , OR hampered by the regulatory devices regarding price setting etc , etc , it’s a wonder they are making such small inroads, but somewhat counterintuitively BT have an interest in these organisations not failing as the regulator would simply queer the pitch even more in the Alt Nets favour .

Edited by Iniltous (Wed 23-Jul-25 19:13:14)

I remember reading about adsl back in 97![/]
I was fitting it in early 98.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

but somewhat counterintuitively BT have an interest in these organisations not failing as the regulator would simply queer the pitch even more in the Alt Nets favour .

I guess you have BT Group shares. (For the record I do not).

The real competition for ~20 years after privatisation was cable; the alt nets arrived because the market was not delivering what the customers wanted to pay for; and at the time (approx 2019) the cost of borrowing money was sensible for long term investing. The regulatory world of PIA was created before they existed.

Alt nets are suffering now due to the cost of money increasing dramatically with all the other changes in the world that started with the pandemic, continued into the european war, and everything that is in the news.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

but somewhat counterintuitively BT have an interest in these organisations not failing as the regulator would simply queer the pitch even more in the Alt Nets favour .

I guess you have BT Group shares. (For the record I do not).

The real competition for ~20 years after privatisation was cable; the alt nets arrived because the market was not delivering what the customers wanted to pay for; and at the time (approx 2019) the cost of borrowing money was sensible for long term investing. The regulatory world of PIA was created before they existed.

Alt nets are suffering now due to the cost of money increasing dramatically with all the other changes in the world that started with the pandemic, continued into the european war, and everything that is in the news.

Yes let’s all quietly shed a tear for the plucky Alt Net industry , the embodiment of altruism

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Yes let’s all quietly shed a tear for the plucky Alt Net industry , the embodiment of altruism

???? A product of a regulated open market against a large incumbent and access to cheap capital (cash) is what created the alt net market. Many on this forum have predicted that as cheap capital ended the alt nets will merge to survive; in a very similar manner to the cable firms. despite the wish of governments the UK doesn't have the population size of other countries.

I think this discussion has reached its logical conclusion, as it appears you dislike competition of the incumbent.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Yes let’s all quietly shed a tear for the plucky Alt Net industry , the embodiment of altruism

???? A product of a regulated open market against a large incumbent and access to cheap capital (cash) is what created the alt net market. Many on this forum have predicted that as cheap capital ended the alt nets will merge to survive; in a very similar manner to the cable firms. despite the wish of governments the UK doesn't have the population size of other countries.

I think this discussion has reached its logical conclusion, as it appears you dislike competition of the incumbent.

Not at all , we obviously have a differing opinion of what constitutes fair competition though

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I think the easiest answer has been missed …

A national FTTP network, all rolled out and owned by one company, and the various providers just bring links to a central exchange.

But many would complain for sure.

That’s the Swiss “dark fibre” model. Used to delivery whatever service you want, from X independent provider, over a star-wired exchange direct to premises architecture.

In reply to a post by Taras:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Been mentioned before , but worth repeating
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the...

Thatcher was kicked out in 1990. Of course decisions she made were wrong; high speed broadband only started in 1999 with NTL's cable modem service, and BT Group ADSL and this site sprung up around 2002. Technology changes faster than governments.

I remember reading about adsl back in 97!

i joined adslguide back in Thu 08-Mar-01 18:50:31

When did this site change its name?

2006 according to a google search.

Edit: And the about page of the site itself.

Edited by ian72 (Fri 25-Jul-25 08:28:46)

In reply to a post by candlerb:

It's been tried. It failed.

There was a company which installed such internal cabling, but they wanted payment from the service providers to access the asset. The service providers, not surprisingly, refused. (I can't remember the name of the company).

Found it: Complete Technology Group. They left the market due to having no customers.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/06/ctg-wi...

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/complete-fi...