I've highlighted this a few times in talks, and once new Openreach logo appears on the ONT (i.e. no mention of BT at all) some might change, never underestimate the corporate branding.

On these new build Openreach FTTP only estates everything up to and including the ONTE are already in situ and lit before the properties are even sold . It all having been installed new the New Sites wallahs during development.
Openreach knows what the ONTE serial number is for each plot ... there�s flyers left showing how to order ... the ordered service is remotely built and switched on (can be as quick as the day after) and bingo .... sorted.

If everyone had that same theory about not wishing to train staff because the ROI would be too slow, where would we be ? You for one wouldn�t have your FTTPoD service for starters. Maybe no ADSL ... as no one wished to cough up to train staff to fit and fault it. etc etc.

Good reply.

Me new van has no mention of BT on it, still seems to confuse many.

Zen Internet

£43.99 for unlimited 38 Mbps down, 9.5 Mbps up service (inc line rental)

Its not as cheap as BT Infinity 1 in the first 12 months, but once outside the minimum term the price is pretty much the same.

In reply to a post by sjwright:

The lady in the FTTP Connections department told me my only option was BT as they had 'made an investment in the development'. When I pointed out that it sounded like BT had monopolised my choice as a consumer, she said 'other suppliers had the opportunity to provide a service but had chosen not to'.

Interesting...

A couple of years ago, we went through a phase where brownfield FTTP sites (ie not new build) were being quoted excess construction charges by Openreach, in order to connect to the FTTP infrastructure, even if it was just across the street. That felt strange too, when FTTC orders would never get any kind of ECC charge.

The problem seemed to go away when BT (at retail level) chose to consume the excess construction charges without passing them on to the householder; other ISPs would not match that offer.

I always wondered, then, if this was one reason why other mass-market/cheap ISPs didn't want to get involved - because it would mean getting involved with ECCs, and possibly having to pay out for them.

In reply to a post by sjwright:

This concerns me. Does this mean that it's BT and not Openreach who provide the line in this scenario?

I wonder, then, in your case: has BT chosen to pay some excess construction charge.

In reply to a post by sjwright:

If it's Openreach, I don't see how they can legally do this, as it was my understanding is that they had to offer their infrastructure to wholesale. I'm hoping someone here can shed some light on this

The legal position is more complicated than that.

First, it is down to the developer to decide who to engage to provide utility services. They don't have to choose BT. The government is keen to ensure there is competition in supply to new-builds.

But conversely, the law has put in place a USO requirement that BT provides (at minimum) a line capable of voice service and 28kb dial-up speeds. However, this USO comes with the ability to charge ECC's, and (importantly) doesn't apply if the land-owner is not giving permission for Openreach to install their equipment.

The roads on new-build sites are private, until everything has finished, and been adopted by the council. Openreach has no right to use them unless the developer agrees.

So ... some developers choose a different supplier for fibre services. Anyone buying a house is essentially locked-in to that supplier (see the mention of "see the light" above) at least until the road gets adopted ... perhaps 3 years after building has finished.

I also wonder what happens to some of these estates being built without proper freeholds.

So you are in a strange legal limbo in a new-build. As it is feasible for a developer to reach some kind of lock-in agreement with a third party fibre supplier, I wonder if it is also possible for a developer to lock-in BT as a supplier instead ... at least until adoption.

It's only a theory ... and I could see how BT's name could become mud for doing it. But it might also be the only way that excess construction charges can be recouped. I wouldn't put it past a developer

Thoughts anyone?

I think you've misunderstood Andrews reply.

Besides, there's no need to have a phone line with PlusNets FTTP (trial), which AFAICS is the cheapest by far, £22.49 / £17.49 pm for 80/20 or 40/2 respectively with no phone line.

I think that's only available to existing customers though.

Yes, you're quite right, but I can think of a way round it...

If the OP had a friend or relative who would be willing to let him/her order an ADSLx service at their premises (may require another line to be installed at said premises), s/he could join PN on ADSL then do a 'house move'. There have been several cases of PN ADSLx customers moving to FTTP only areas and being accommodated onto the PN FTTP trial.

In reply to a post by Rastus:

I think you've misunderstood Andrews reply.

Its possible, its been a very long day for me today LOL.

I know with BT we had to keep our line, I know I wanted to transfer our number over to our VoIP Service due to our copper line is bad and faulty, but BT told me we need to have an active phone line and if the copper line was that bad we could have it moved over to FVA and that it costs the same per month.

Which was why I had the phone moved over to FVA, to which our phone line is now crisp clear, so we are now happy with the phone line

And then BT became ass hats and then charged us a deactivation fee for the copper line, even though there was no mention of that fee, so I wasn't happy there.

In reply to a post by Rastus:

Besides, there's no need to have a phone line with PlusNets FTTP (trial), which AFAICS is the cheapest by far, £22.49 / £17.49 pm for 80/20 or 40/2 respectively with no phone line.

Yeah, but isn't PlusNet's FTTP (trial) only for already customers?
If so then that is only relevant if the user is already a customer of PlusNet, but if there is only FTTP and no copper lines and the user isn't already a PlusNet customer there is no chance in them getting FTTP from them.

But those prices do look nice
I wonder what price it becomes for higher speeds like 300 Mbit etc.
Its like Zen's prices for 40 and 80 seem fine, sadly anything above those speeds and the price goes sky high.

Paul