In reply to a post by adslmax:

Get a quote from BTO how much in total inc VAT for FTTPoD and get a quote from Virgin Media how much in total inc VAT for Cable Broadband Stand Alone.

I bet Virgin Media come out the cheaper one than BTO.

What's the significance of Cable Broadband Stand Alone? I don't live in a cabled area anymore so I'm not sure what it's supposed to offer over FTTPoD or FTTC.

Hmm.

A better comparison would be to compare FTTP in areas where it's already built with Virgin Media.

If comparing FTTPoD with asking VM for a quote to service a single new property that isn't on their network then, no, Virgin wouldn't be cheaper even if they did supply a quote. With FTTPoD Openreach are sucking up a fair whack of the costs on the first connection, VM would be wanting the full cost of construction.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

your post says a lot, a person who is internet affluent and spends more than the average joe bloggs on connectivity stating the FTTPoD terms are an issue. Doesnt bode well.

You need to copyright the phrase 'internet affluent'.

Yes, by Monday I'll have 2 x FTTC coming in, one of which my employer pays for, but even then FTTPoD doesn't even enter the equation as it stands.

It's very much a niche product for now, which is exactly how Openreach want it else they'd deliver more options.

In reply to a post by mrkelly:

Yep, the big problem is that the costs are a lot for most home users. Not so bad for businesses, but I think the lack of SLAs compared to leased lines make them less appealing to people whose income depends upon their connectivity.

The case for this versus 2 x FTTC lines, load balanced via diverse carriers is a precarious one.

A business that can make do with 30Mb upstream is unlikely to require more than 100Mb downstream.

FTTPoD's main takers, for me, will be businesses that don't want to pay for a leased line, and are too far away from their serving cabinet to receive good FTTC speeds.

In other words, not very many.

From a purely selfish point of view I really don't care where they're positioning the product. It's pretty much all I can see that could get me a directly connected downstream speed above 5Mbps and upstream above 0.4Mbps. If they're offering only because they have to keep Ofcom or some other body happy so be it. As long as it's not just yet another product on a shelf that I can't have because of the postcode lottery that is nationwide broadband provision in the UK.

At the moment our trial is open if anyone can get it and wants to take part but we aren't actively promoting it.

For availability the best way is to check the BTW checker:

http://www.dslchecker.bt.com/

If/when it's available it will show on there.

When we move to anything beyond the low key trial we'll put an update on our community site. If it already shows as being available then feel free to contact me via PM and I can get you a better idea of the cost.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

For me it's not even the install that's the issue. It's the 36 month contract and retail propositions around the 100GBP/month mark that are the not so hot parts.

An awful lot can happen in 36 months, I take a moment of pause signing up for 12 or 18 months, let alone a full 3 years.

If the contract were less prolonged and the products available better reflected the full GEA-FTTP product set it would be a different matter.

I may be missing something but why is 36 months such a problem for homeowners who don't plan on moving? It's not as if you're signing up for something which is current technology that might get replaced (eg ADSL2 replaced by FTTC) - nothing is going to be faster than FTTP in the next 3 years?

Any awful lot can happen in 36 months !

A desirable but non-essential commitment of £100pm for three years is not something most of us take on lightly, even if at the time we can afford it. Quite apart from in this cases the high initial capital outlay.

sorry but 3 years is ridicolous and your comment is also insulting to the millions who dont own their home.

Many isps change hugely over a 3 year period and as stated earlier a 18 month contract already requires a lot of thinking to commit to never mind 3 years.

Even with homeowners, they cant really see the future, issues may happen that leads to them moving home.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

sorry but 3 years is ridicolous and your comment is also insulting to the millions who dont own their home.

Many isps change hugely over a 3 year period and as stated earlier a 18 month contract already requires a lot of thinking to commit to never mind 3 years.

Even with homeowners, they cant really see the future, issues may happen that leads to them moving home.

I take your point that 36 months is not suitable for people renting (who would also be unlikely to want to pay the upfront outlay given it is not an investment in their home). As I mentioned though, I would only consider a 36 month contract as a home owner who did not intend to move - it's hardly an insulting comment to anyone!

RobertoS mentioned £100 per month. Where does this number come from? During the 3yr contract term, AAISP charge £20 + the number of units you use (around £5 per month for the amount I use it). People's circumstances change but other broadband packages are not much cheaper than this so it's not an excessive commitment if you think you'll need broadband irrespective of your circumstances. AAISP's monthly price increases after the initial 3yr term but you're free to move at that point if someone is better.

The fact that ISPs change over 3 years is very fair - there is clearly a risk here so you would need to choose your ISP carefully.

It's clearly a niche product given the upfront cost is not affordable to everyone. However, it is an option available which is better than not having any choice at all isn't it? The install cost is a significant barrier to people but if you can afford and justify this, the 36 month contract seems less of an issue to me on a relative basis.