In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I wonder what the premium would be for a flat that has both Openreach FTTP and Hyperoptic Gigabit as an option e.g. http://www.getlivinglondon.com/

I suspect the premium for FTTP/Hyperoptic on those flats would barely register compared to the cost of the flats in the first place.

Although a 1 bed flat for £1600 per month isn't quite as bad as I was expecting but still not cheap. 4 bed townhouse for £3K a month is also not that bad for London I would think. But, an extra £3K to property value on something rented at £3K per month is not a lot.

In reply to a post by ian72:

I'm also wondering if having FTTP available would increase property value by £3K over having FTTC. I guess there are parts of the country it might but in my experience most people buying houses wouldn't pay £3K more to get FTTP over FTTC (and many don't even check broadband before they buy).

Remove FTTC as an option, and would FTTP still be worth £3,000, to escape ADSL? Personally, I'd pay it, by commercial loan if necessary.

It always surprises me what many people consider essential. When we last tried moving home, at least one prospective buyer walked away because we didn't have Sky TV! (Trees and church in the way; God works in mysterious ways!)

At some point, copper pairs are going to be obsoleted altogether, in favour of a fully-fibre optic network. FTTP will deliver both data and voice telephony - and FTTP will have to fall under some sort of Universal Service Obligation. £3,000 could become that baseline install cost; serving as a revenue-earner too, for fibre roll-out in the shires.

Cheers, edwin

I made no reference to OR in regarding BT blowing money on sport. Since OR don't sell broadband to end users my objection to BT broadband users paying for sport whether they wanted it or not was clearly a reference to end user BTR prices.

If £3k is the proposed baseline install cost then it will NEVER work as part of the USO which carries a LARGE affordability clause. Hence why BT Basic is available on landlines.

My comment was primarily because you said you agreed with the previous comment which was:

Like I say, they have to use our taxes to fund FTTC but they can afford to blow money on sports.

This is wrong as the part of BT spending on FTTC is different from that spending on sports - so they are not linked.

I don't disagree with your comment though that Sports shouldn't be paid for by all BTR customers - charge a fair rate for those that want sports to cover the costs. Alas, they probably look at it as a way to draw in more punters to the platform as a whole and charging £20 for the sports channels would not go down well to those punters.

On the other hand, the installation of FTTP to a home or office, and to a lesser degree FTTC, is an amenity that adds measurably to the asset value, and thus saleability of a premises.

IIRC, installing fibre to the home was shown to add a few percentage points (~4%) to the property value. Andrew has probably covered this in an earlier TBB news bulletin. That added amenity value is surely true for rented premises as well.

Here I agree with you and this is why the development where I live has gap funded the network rearrangement and installation of an all-in-one PCP/FTTC cabinet on the development. Those letting their properties found they were losing tenants and were having to charge less than surrounding properties due to the absence of a decent broadband connection. Likewise property prices were a 3-4% less than similar properties with decent broadband availability.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If £3k is the proposed baseline install cost then it will NEVER work as part of the USO which carries a LARGE affordability clause. Hence why BT Basic is available on landlines.

Very true, Andrew. Perhaps add a means-tested subsidy for the have-nots. £3k buys so little nowadays; nor even a half-decent secondhand car. Gimme gimme FTTP for 3k on a 0% loan!

Cheers, Edwin