No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

And there in lies the crux of this whole argument. The CFP or whatever funding model has created a CBT that has a spare port that is destined for the OP's property, regardless of any monies put forward by the freehold propertys residents. This would be a totally different convo if the OP wanted FTTP but couldn't get it.

I'm in the middle of dealing with my CFP at the moment and we only need 50 / 116 houses on the plan to hit the build costs. The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

Contributors versus non-contributors is possibly the biggest deal breaker for a lots of people thinking of financially participating in a CFP.

I've even heard one resident say they should pay less because they live nearer to the aggregation node.

On very early CFP's OpenReach also skipped some properties at the request of the organiser.
That's not the case now and hasn't been for some time

OpenReach now install full capacity for every property passed. Over capacity installed.
A large enough CBT for everyone on the DP is installed.

If your property isn't enabled (doesn't show WBC FTTP) then yes you have to pay to be covered.

With regards to paying for additional capacity, you've been a bit selective in quoting my post.

If there are no excess construction charges being charged by OpenReach then there's nothing to pay.

That would come under excess construction charges.
OpenReach pay the 1st £1,000 anyway.

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

Hi PianSomB, I have a few questions...

First of all, what is a CFP client?

How does OpenReach know who is a "CFP client"?
How does the ordering system prioritise CFP clients?
What is there to stop a non CFP client taking a CBT port before a CFP client?
What exists that means a resident who is not a CFP client is more likely to have to pay for capacity upgrades than a resident who is a CFP client?

As someone who deals with CFP schemes regularly it's not an expression I have come across before.
All the CFP schemes I have been involved in have seen all properties be able to order at or around the same time.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

Contributors versus non-contributors is possibly the biggest deal breaker for a lots of people thinking of financially participating in a CFP.

I've even heard one resident say they should pay less because they live nearer to the aggregation node.

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

Openreach are not being "greedy" by providing extra capacity to serve properties which didn't explicitly agree to the CFP. On the contrary, you could say they're being "generous" by including extra FTTP ports for free. I'd say they are being "sensible" because they'd only have to go round adding the extra FTTP capacity sooner or later, as they transition the whole country eventually to FTTP.

Note that there is no such thing as a "CFP client", because Openreach doesn't know (or care) who the individuals are who contributed to the cost of the CFP. Openreach contracts with a single legal entity, which could be the residents association, or a local business, or a community interest company (CIC) set up for that purpose. All Openreach knows is that there's an entity, and that entity pays the total bill. How the entity chooses to fund that amount is entirely up to them.

In this case, it sounds like the residents association believe they somehow "own" the network that they marshalled the money for. They don't.

mihael chare

The way Openreach charge some people (early adopters) such as yourself but not others who benefit is not particularly fair. I am fortunate that where I live I have Gigaclear FTTP and everyone pays much the same.

really so you are now an expert on operneach as well then are you

michael chare

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

greedy what are you on about ,

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In this case, it sounds like the residents association believe they somehow "own" the network that they marshalled the money for. They don't.

At the moment it’s all just “talk” from what the OP says. Doesn’t sound like he’s willing to bend to their demand either.

However at some point it needs to be make it clear to the RA directors that they don’t. Nor do they have *any* authority to dictate payment for future connections to Openreach infrastructure . It’s almost bordering on blackmail.

I’m sure both Ofcom (and possibly Openreach) would have something quite interesting to say to the RA directors about such “Robin Hood FTTP payment” demands”.....

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Even if the OP lived there at the time the CFP was done they still wouldn't have to pay.

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

It's very true thank you very much

People who don't contribute to a CFP don't have to pay if their property is WBC FTTP enabled under the scheme.
That's true for anyone who lives there at the time or anyone who moves to the area later on.

As mentioned in the post(s) above, OpenReach don't even know who contributed to a CFP. It's a point I overlooked in my original reply.
Capacity isn't somehow reserved for "CFP clients".

What you've done there is make a general pedantic point about capacity. It's nothing specific to a CFP. It's a bit misleading to how a CFP works.

*As with any install (not just a CFP), installation charges and excess construction charges may apply. Subject to capacity. "Insert other small print here"