In reply to a post by therioman:

It is better than many of the altnets. The fibre in the ground to your home is only a small part of the overall picture. If you had to deal with the altnets often (and I do), you'll find the provisioning, support, troubleshooting, order processes etc are often half baked. You'd also see if you looked at our monitoring screens that the Openreach circuits are far more robust than the majority of altnet ones (there are some outliers who deliver very robust service, but that isn't then norm). For a start, many of the altnets have very limited peering, transit etc to the outside world so issues with any of them tend to cause network issues for the altnet, whereas the more established ISPs typically (but again, there are exceptions) using Openreach have a more robust network in that sense too.

Are you an openreach fanboy like a lot of them on ISPreview? You may be right, but a lot of these altnets are new, the networks are new, Openreach have been in the telecoms/broadband game for many years, so they should be better. Hopefully, Altnets will get better as they learn the problems and build better networks and get more reliable.,
I know I have complained about Zzoomm being a bit iffy reliability wise compared to my old FTTC, but I think things are improving, had no one moaning on faceache for nearly 2 weeks about disconnections or slow speed. Oh, we did have one, but they are expecting gigabit speeds over Wi-fi. Mine have been fine for over two weeks now.
I did not want to go to FTTP, I was fine with what I had. Openreach FTTP as well as Zzoomm is available here., so looking at other providers, they just tried to push me to FTTP and charging a higher price than I was paying. Plusnet who I was with kept pushing me to FTTP, I told them I did not want FTTP, I was fine with FTTC as long as they gave me a decent offer. they offered me FTTC at £28 a month or something like that, but wanted me to take out a 24-month contract. just shows that staying with a company for over 9 years mean nothing. I could have FTTP for £24, but around 74Mb/s.

I did look at Now broadband, because they offer FTTC for 12 months contract, but their prices were higher than they used to be. Zzoomm sent me a leaflet offering me 500Mb/s for £24 on a 12 month contract, so I thought if I am going to be pushed to FTTP, then I may as well go with zzoomm.

But in reality an awful lot of people have an altnet or nothing for a fibre connection - so they're not getting choice, they're getting a fake choice as the realistic choice is 'fibre from the altnet with the flaws' or 'not a fibre connection' - that isn't really a choice.

But an awful lot of people have had openreach and nothing else for many years, apart time they had some decent competition

Openreach brings more choice of provider where variables like peering, transit, customer support etc can be the differentiators - an altnet typically brings zero choice in any of that and often an inferior overall service.

Openreach may bring more providers, but it is still one company gaining the money and monopoly and that is the problem, Openreach have had the monopoly for far too long. It also still belongs to BT,
Some altnets have a choice of ISPs. The problem I found with ISPs on FTTC is that they were more or less all the same, while you may get different prices, the broadband was the same, even Talk Talk offered a pretty decent service on FTTC. It will be the same fir FTTP, there will be no difference between them, apart from prices and maybe some offering extras or pushing extras, something that BT seems to do.

Choice is great, don't get me wrong, but I think BT need to sell of Openreach.

It isn't quite as much a win as it sounds - and the reality is (and we're seeing it already) the altnets can't compete and will get consolidated. The same happened in the cable days and we ended up with Virgin Media.

It may happen, in fact I am sure it will happen, which is one of the reason I was a bit nervy of going for Zzoomm and another reason I was happy to stay on FTTC. We have to see what the market does, I noticed another zzoomm van up here last week a couple of doors away from me, so they seem to be doing better in my road at least than Openreach, so these people must be happy to stay on one network.

i tell you a something, I am not that bothered about broadband, to me, it is something that is needed these days because trying to live without it is a pain in the neck. I know it is possible, I know a couple that do, no broadband, no mobile phone, nothing high-tech at all, they still have a CRT TV, I did have to get another set top box for them not so long ago. they manage fine, but it has to be a pain in the neck, at the moment their bank like mine has a branch here, but if that goes I am not sure how they will cope. They don't use cards either.
sometimes I think it would be nice to live like that again, but I don't have the time to pop into a shop to pay bills and even that is getting more difficult.
Broadband for me is just another bill I would rather do without. never used to be, I used to enjoy using the internet and getting info, but with smartphones, I can do all that now.
the other problem is now for me is I have got a lot of smart devices and also my video entertainment is now via broadband.

Are you an openreach fanboy like a lot of them on ISPreview?

Sure, if your definition of 'fanboy' is 'able to see the pros and cons and has experience with both the good and bad'

You may be right, but a lot of these altnets are new, the networks are new, Openreach have been in the telecoms/broadband game for many years, so they should be better. Hopefully, Altnets will get better as they learn the problems and build better networks and get more reliable.,

Sure, I didn't say otherwise. Although actually what you'll see is they'll be acquired and merged into a much smaller (likely 1, 2 or possibly 3) providers which is what will actually solve the issue. Just like Virgin.

But an awful lot of people have had openreach and nothing else for many years, apart time they had some decent competition

Openeach may bring more providers, but it is still one company gaining the money and monopoly and that is the problem, Openreach have had the monopoly for far too long. It also still belongs to BT,

That argument only partially makes sense - because it literally is not one company 'gaining the money' as the amount you pay to your ISP is a lot more than the ISP pays to openreach. And your ISP can be any of a large number of companies. The endless gibbering about how they have this monopoly because they had the network first is only partially true today - sure, they do have the extensive ducts and poles network - this is available to everyone - via PIA - and a HUGE number of Altnets are using it - hell, even Virgin Media now uses that. Those Altnets are getting a massive cost advantage doing it because it hugely takes out the civil costs, so if anything, the 'monopoly' you talk of is the only thing that makes it possible for half of them to exist. They simply can't afford to do it by building new poles/ducts. It's far more complex than this very tired and outdated 'monopoly' argument.

Some altnets have a choice of ISPs. The problem I found with ISPs on FTTC is that they were more or less all the same, while you may get different prices, the broadband was the same, even Talk Talk offered a pretty decent service on FTTC. It will be the same for FTTP, there will be no difference between them, apart from prices and maybe some offering extras or pushing extras, something that BT seems to do.

They certainly are not 'more or less the same' - there are providers like A&A who are expensive relatively, but offer a wide range of additional features and services customers clearly like because they keep growing customer base despite the competition. Then there is the mass market types of TalkTalk who offer cheap broadband but you get fewer bells and whistles. It's a very competitive market with a lot of choice at every level.

Choice is great, don't get me wrong, but I think BT need to sell of Openreach.

Sure, please do explain how you intend to make that work from a financial perspective - as much as I wish it was a completely separate non-attached even with the legal separation and controls that exist today, the numbers won't work. Well, not unless you fancy paying a lot more. As much as it drives me nuts sometimes dealing with them, it's really not this simple.

It may happen, in fact I am sure it will happen,

There is no 'may' about it - it's already happening, with consolidation having long since started. Plenty of examples out there, and it is the only financially viable route - the exceptions might be someone like B4RN as they have a very different model, but it isn't nationally scalable.

i tell you a something, I am not that bothered about broadband

By definition my friend, you post on a broadband specific forum, you *ARE* bothered about broadband

In reply to a post by smouty:

Do they do this? I didn't think they used any Openreach equipment..

This is my Swish cab. It's just a few metres from my old, hated OR cab on the opposite corner of the junction; whether they use OR ducts for the backhaul I don't know. Round here Swish used a small amount of PIA and some OR poles, but mostly they dug trenches and installed Toby pots. From chats with the engineers when they were installing this cab, and subesquently confirmed by @Swish_fibre in a private conversation, I know that my OLT is in there.

In reply to a post by therioman:

Sure, if your definition of 'fanboy' is 'able to see the pros and cons and has experience with both the good and bad'

I can see the pros and cons, but i have noticed a few people, certainly those on ISP review, seem to want Alt nest to fail. I know some have shares in BT and maybe some work in BT or openreach, but not all.

Sure, I didn't say otherwise. Although actually what you'll see is they'll be acquired and merged into a much smaller (likely 1, 2 or possibly 3) providers which is what will actually solve the issue. Just like Virgin.

You mean fewer providers, I presume? We will see what happens.

That argument only partially makes sense - because it literally is not one company 'gaining the money' as the amount you pay to your ISP is a lot more than the ISP pays to openreach. And your ISP can be any of a large number of companies. The endless gibbering about how they have this monopoly because they had the network first is only partially true today - sure, they do have the extensive ducts and poles network - this is available to everyone - via PIA - and a HUGE number of Altnets are using it - hell, even Virgin Media now uses that. Those Altnets are getting a massive cost advantage doing it because it hugely takes out the civil costs, so if anything, the 'monopoly' you talk of is the only thing that makes it possible for half of them to exist. They simply can't afford to do it by building new poles/ducts. It's far more complex than this very tired and outdated 'monopoly' argument.

Oh come on, Openreach had the network cheap and did very little for years, only doing what they had to do to keep it from falling apart. Other countries had pure fibre for years and yet Openreach decided on a hybrid system, part fibre and part copper.
The only reason Openreach wants to change the phone system is because the old one is falling apart, and they can't get parts. I understand that many people don't use their home phones these days and I doubt many providers make a lot of money from a home p[hone these days., but for years BT/openreach had the monopoly on it.
so don't come out with this rubbish of feeling sorry for Openreach and BT.

Sure, altnets are using the poles and ducts, that is if they can get into the ducts in the first place, but that makes sense unless you want more digging or more poles?

I know Zzoomm dug a lot of their own ducts around here, the main one being on the cycle track.
We have paid for these ducts and poles anyway, with the amount of money BT have had from the public purse.

[quote]
They certainly are not 'more or less the same' - there are providers like A&A who are expensive relatively, but offer a wide range of additional features and services customers clearly like because they keep growing customer base despite the competition. Then there is the mass market types of TalkTalk who offer cheap broadband but you get fewer bells and whistles. It's a very competitive market with a lot of choice at every level.



But the service is the same more or less, you can add bells and whistles, but that is it. The main advantage with more expensive providers is customer service, but my cheap and cheerful at the time Plusnet service have been for the most part fine. The time when it did fail was nothing to do with plusnet, but the network provider, openreach. there have been times when it had gone a bit on the slow side, but few and far between. Would I have got a better service by paying a silly amount of money to A&A?
I love to support the smaller company, that is why I buy my coffee beans from two local companies, but sometimes you need to look at what you are getting for that money.
All I want is something to connect me to the internet, no bells and whistles, yes I had email from a provider years ago, but I learnt that was not a good idea. That was with BT when I decided to stick a lot of my eggs in one basket, including mobile phone. sometimes you have to try these things. Saying that, i did get a mobile phone sim from plusnet, but I was not tired into anything.

you say competitive, are you sure? It seems that a lot of the larger providers are following each others, prices now are more or less the same, and they are pushing people onto FTTP with higher prices than FTTC and yet we were told that FTTP is cheaper to run. they are giving people little choice in the matter. If i wanted to go back to Plusnet, they would not even offer me FTTC.

Sure, please do explain how you intend to make that work from a financial perspective - as much as I wish it was a completely separate non-attached even with the legal separation and controls that exist today, the numbers won't work. Well, not unless you fancy paying a lot more. As much as it drives me nuts sometimes dealing with them, it's really not this simple.

Openreach makes millions, so a company buying them up will make the same amount, or maybe put it under government control.

There is no 'may' about it - it's already happening, with consolidation having long since started. Plenty of examples out there, and it is the only financially viable route - the exceptions might be someone like B4RN as they have a very different model, but it isn't nationally scalable.

I suppose it is happening with some, as I said competition is good, but there have to be a balance. At the end of the day, none of us can look into the future and see what is going to happen, we will have to wait and see.
[quote
By definition my friend, you post on a broadband specific forum, you *ARE* bothered about broadband :)
[/quote]

I post on here, yes, but that is because i am using broadband, but if I could get away with not having it, I would, less money to spend.

I can see the pros and cons, but i have noticed a few people, certainly those on ISP review, seem to want Alt nest to fail. I know some have shares in BT and maybe some work in BT or openreach, but not all.

Want them to fail... no

Expect many to fail (or avoid failure by acquisition and mergers), absolutely)

You mean fewer providers, I presume? We will see what happens.

I did - it's already happening now, and it is the only realistic outcome. It is near on impossible to compete with the Virgins, Skys, TalkTalks and BTs of the world with multi-play services and buying, marketing power etc without economy of scale and it makes zero sense to have endless repetition in infrastructure, admin systems, staffing etc. Most of the altnets are VC funded, they don't want to run an ISP, they want to make money and get a nice return - they do that by selling, so it's exactly how it will go.

Oh come on, Openreach had the network cheap and did very little for years, only doing what they had to do to keep it from falling apart.

They didn't have 'the network' for years because - as part your other point, we didn't have a fibre network. I don't agree with all the decisions made, but FTTC/VDSL has filled a gap for many many years and still will for some time because national deployment of fibre is not a 5 minute job - so it had and has a role.

When you compare 'other countries' you're often not comparing like for like - often people quote countries with high fibre uptake but benefits like density and high rises, which are different to widely spread out rural setups. Indeed, go look at say America - they have the money, they could do it, but there is a WILD variation in availability and often a total lack of choice there. They don't have the widespread ISP choice we do - so for the downsides (and they do of course exist), we also have a much richer and wider choice of providers and that keeps competition strong and pricing down.

The only reason Openreach wants to change the phone system is because the old one is falling apart, and they can't get parts. I understand that many people don't use their home phones these days and I doubt many providers make a lot of money from a home p[hone these days., but for years BT/openreach had the monopoly on it.
so don't come out with this rubbish of feeling sorry for Openreach and BT.
[/quote]

That's not the only reason, and I don't feel 'sorry' for them - I just live in a realistic world where I understand commercials because I live them. Many things have changed - demand has changed, the cost of running the old phone networks has skyrocketed, more competition has arrived sure - that has helped too, no doubt, but again, like many of your points, it isn't some single cause and simple reason, it's a lot more nuanced and complex.

Sure, altnets are using the poles and ducts, that is if they can get into the ducts in the first place, but that makes sense unless you want more digging or more poles?

They can get in the ducts, and as I said, it's not just the 'altnets' - the Virgin Media's of the world are *ALSO* using PIA - without Openreach that wouldn't happen. So in a way, whether the result of regulation or otherwise, we have a wider range of options in part because we have Openreach. If Openreach was still BT in the private sense, with no sharing of the resources, you'd have less competition, fewer altnets etc - so in a way, what we've actually achieved (complete with flaws, which you will pretend I don't think exist, but I know they do) is more competition, more choice for consumers and lower pricing - for consumers and lowering the cost of entry for competitiors. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible either.

But the service is the same more or less, you can add bells and whistles, but that is it. The main advantage with more expensive providers is customer service, but my cheap and cheerful at the time Plusnet service have been for the most part fine.

Great, but that's not true - the only bit that is 'the same' is the raw speed from your home to the cabinet with VDSL. After that, the ISP can differentiate in many ways - allowances, priority, peering, transit, IPv4, Static IPs, IPv6, monitoring, equipment, routers, billing & pricing, resilience options like 4G etc, customer service location, technical know how, advanced services or features etc. There is a massive amount of variance available. If you just want a simple connection, sure the budget provider is just fine, and very few are 'bad' these days in that respect, but the reality is a huge amount is variable in the real world. Again, I monitor lines from many providers and I see differences in the performance and availability all the time - the most reliable bit is the premises > cabinet bit - most of the time - it's typically either 'fine' or 'persistently unreliable' with nothing inbetween.

Would I have got a better service by paying a silly amount of money to A&A?

Some argue yes - they're known for having a reputation in that sense. Is it fully deserved, personally I am not wholly convinced, but I am partially convinced they offer something extra, but what really demonstrates it is, they're selling the proposition to growing numbers of customers, so you have to be realistic to say somehow, what they offer appeals, and people believe they're offering sufficient extra to justify it.

Again, that's the point - we have rich competition, and the likes of Openreach ultimately enable that.

Conversely, let's say you live on a new build where Persimmon Homes exist and you move in there. Your choice is... FibreNest, FibreNest or Fibrenest. Want faster than 500 meg? Tough. Want v6, tough. Want static subnets for v4, no can do. Unhappy with customer service? Suck it up buttercup.

If however Openreach was there - along with the downsides, you could also choose Sky, idnet, Zen, A&A, whoever you like - and trust me, people *do* want choices and complaints about the lack of choice *despite having fibre* are relentless.

you say competitive, are you sure? It seems that a lot of the larger providers are following each others, prices now are more or less the same, and they are pushing people onto FTTP with higher prices than FTTC and yet we were told that FTTP is cheaper to run. they are giving people little choice in the matter. If i wanted to go back to Plusnet, they would not even offer me FTTC.

Everyone is being offered FTTP, pricing is incentivised (to ISPs) to push FTTP.

FTTC isn't available anymore for new supply because FTTC is PSTN Voice and VDSL, the replacement is SOGEA. Available where FTTP isn't available because the plan is ultimately to bin it - remember when you complained above about how other countries are just fibre without it - well we want to get there, and if we keep selling the interim products we don't get everyone to just fibre - so make up your mind - we either remove the old PSTN, ADSL, VDSL stuff when FTTP is available and eventually end up on FTTP for everyone or we don't - and if 40/10 FTTC Was fine for you, then 40/10 SOGEA exists, is normally a tad cheaper, and likewise 40/10 FTTP exists for about the same price from many providers.

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Openreach is regulated, legally separated and supervised already.

If you dig into the finances you'll find Openreach and BT are pretty dependent - good luck finding someone to take that on outside of BT with the liabilities it has.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Are you an openreach fanboy

What is the opposite of an Openreach fanboy? just asking for a friend in Hereford who absolutely hates Openreach although his preferred full fibre provider Zzoomm has proven to be less reliable than Openreach.

In reply to a post by therioman:

i tell you a something, I am not that bothered about broadband

By definition my friend, you post on a broadband specific forum, you *ARE* bothered about broadband

Quite - given Adrian's extensive posting history on here, it's a fairly ludicrous statement for him to make!

In reply to a post by therioman:

Want them to fail... no

Expect many to fail (or avoid failure by acquisition and mergers), absolutely)

As I said, we will see what happens in the future, I am just glad we have a bit more competition.

I did - it's already happening now, and it is the only realistic outcome. It is near on impossible to compete with the Virgins, Skys, TalkTalks and BTs of the world with multi-play services and buying, marketing power etc without economy of scale and it makes zero sense to have endless repetition in infrastructure, admin systems, staffing etc. Most of the altnets are VC funded, they don't want to run an ISP, they want to make money and get a nice return - they do that by selling, so it's exactly how it will go.

There are a lot of people that are not bothered with multiplay services, where you are stuck in some contract for months and then when you cancel you get email after email trying to get you onto another service. My next door neighbour have Sky and uses their broadband, but they seem to love paying sky-high prices for stuff they don't use. I don't know many people that have other services from the ISP, I realise that is only a small amount of people compared to the rest of the country. I know all about VC, they take the money, hate the things to be honest, but sadly they are needed to get these things up and running

They didn't have 'the network' for years because - as part your other point, we didn't have a fibre network. I don't agree with all the decisions made, but FTTC/VDSL has filled a gap for many many years and still will for some time because national deployment of fibre is not a 5 minute job - so it had and has a role.

Not fibre, but they have had the copper network for years and let a lot of it to rot for years with very little investment. the copper cable going from the pole to my house, was supposed to have been changed when I moved in, never happened, how it has lasted and carried the data for the last 20 years I don't know, must be down to luck.

When you compare 'other countries' you're often not comparing like for like - often people quote countries with high fibre uptake but benefits like density and high rises, which are different to widely spread out rural setups. Indeed, go look at say America - they have the money, they could do it, but there is a WILD variation in availability and often a total lack of choice there. They don't have the widespread ISP choice we do - so for the downsides (and they do of course exist), we also have a much richer and wider choice of providers and that keeps competition strong and pricing down.

America in some parts is as bad as the U.K, even in large cities. My cousin lives in L.A, or on the edge of it and her broadband until last year was awful.

But some European countries have had good broadband for years.

That's not the only reason, and I don't feel 'sorry' for them - I just live in a realistic world where I understand commercials because I live them. Many things have changed - demand has changed, the cost of running the old phone networks has skyrocketed, more competition has arrived sure - that has helped too, no doubt, but again, like many of your points, it isn't some single cause and simple reason, it's a lot more nuanced and complex.

I realise that demand has changed, and now doubt more competition have got Openreach to move their backside, it certainly seems like that here, before Zzoomm, Openreach seemed to be on a go slow, but as soon as Zzoomm came up here, Openreach was here a few weeks after. there are still some parts in the city that don't have Openreach FTTP and one part where a colleague live don't, and I am shocked as there are a lot of people there and must be a huge customer base. Maybe they think because is supposed to be a lot of poverty there, they will not get that many customers.

They can get in the ducts, and as I said, it's not just the 'altnets' - the Virgin Media's of the world are *ALSO* using PIA - without Openreach that wouldn't happen. So in a way, whether the result of regulation or otherwise, we have a wider range of options in part because we have Openreach. If Openreach was still BT in the private sense, with no sharing of the resources, you'd have less competition, fewer altnets etc - so in a way, what we've actually achieved (complete with flaws, which you will pretend I don't think exist, but I know they do) is more competition, more choice for consumers and lower pricing - for consumers and lowering the cost of entry for competitiors. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible either.

Chatting to a openreach chap months ago, this was before I had zoomm and they were digging up a duct as it had collapsed, and he said that there are a fair few of them like it around the city. Openreach is BT, there is not getting away from that, no matter how BT dress it up, just because they take the BT name from vans, don't mean it still don't belong to BT. The reason why BT/openreach had to give access to its poles and ducts is because of the monopoly it has or had. Now the same thing should happen with Kcom, they should be forced to share as well.

I know some people are getting fed up with the mess that is being made around the city, laying this fibre, while Zzoomm is coming to the end, it is not doing them any good making such a mess.

Again, as I said we will see what happens in the future, I don't think we will have another network here, there would be no call for it, shame in one way, because it is competition, but I can understand why others will not want to come here.

Great, but that's not true - the only bit that is 'the same' is the raw speed from your home to the cabinet with VDSL. After that, the ISP can differentiate in many ways - allowances, priority, peering, transit, IPv4, Static IPs, IPv6, monitoring, equipment, routers, billing & pricing, resilience options like 4G etc, customer service location, technical know how, advanced services or features etc. There is a massive amount of variance available. If you just want a simple connection, sure the budget provider is just fine, and very few are 'bad' these days in that respect, but the reality is a huge amount is variable in the real world. Again, I monitor lines from many providers and I see differences in the performance and availability all the time - the most reliable bit is the premises > cabinet bit - most of the time - it's typically either 'fine' or 'persistently unreliable' with nothing inbetween.

But the majority of people don't care about IPv6, 4, static IPs, what router they have or other stuff like it. What they care about is price, certainly the way things are now, and getting a decent speed, so they can do what they need. sure you have some that think they need gigabit speed and there are some may do.

Some argue yes - they're known for having a reputation in that sense. Is it fully deserved, personally I am not wholly convinced, but I am partially convinced they offer something extra, but what really demonstrates it is, they're selling the proposition to growing numbers of customers, so you have to be realistic to say somehow, what they offer appeals, and people believe they're offering sufficient extra to justify it.

Umm, I have never used them, so I don't know what they are like, but the price always put me off. I know some people on her use them, they must think it is worth paying the extra.

Conversely, let's say you live on a new build where Persimmon Homes exist and you move in there. Your choice is... FibreNest, FibreNest or Fibrenest. Want faster than 500 meg? Tough. Want v6, tough. Want static subnets for v4, no can do. Unhappy with customer service? Suck it up buttercup.

I think that is disgraceful, but there have been some housing associations that have done the same thing, someone I know that lived in Cambridge, moved into a flat run by a HA, and they had no choice but to use BT fibre, which then was a lot more expensive than what they were using before. The goverment should step in and stiop this sort of thing. she is marrid now and moved out of the flat, so can choose what ever provider she wants.

If however Openreach was there - along with the downsides, you could also choose Sky, idnet, Zen, A&A, whoever you like - and trust me, people *do* want choices and complaints about the lack of choice *despite having fibre* are relentless.

But it is the company that built the houses that is stopping Openreach going there, not sure how they can do that, but it seems like they are.

veryone is being offered FTTP, pricing is incentivised (to ISPs) to push FTTP.

FTTC isn't available anymore for new supply because FTTC is PSTN Voice and VDSL, the replacement is SOGEA. Available where FTTP isn't available because the plan is ultimately to bin it - remember when you complained above about how other countries are just fibre without it - well we want to get there, and if we keep selling the interim products we don't get everyone to just fibre - so make up your mind - we either remove the old PSTN, ADSL, VDSL stuff when FTTP is available and eventually end up on FTTP for everyone or we don't - and if 40/10 FTTC Was fine for you, then 40/10 SOGEA exists, is normally a tad cheaper, and likewise 40/10 FTTP exists for about the same price from many providers.

]

FTTC is still available here and in many places, if i went to Now broadband I can order FTTC, at the end of the day if the service is still available then people should be able to order it.
the price is the same if you go to the same speed as FTTC, but then people think what is the point of going though the hassle of getting FTTP, when they are not gaining?
One of the reason I did not want FTTP, even from Zzoom, the hassle of getting the thing installed, while the instalation itself was not too bad, it was a pain in getting the permission to get it installed, as I live in rented accomadation. some people can;t even get the permisson, there was somone on here not so long ago saying they know somone who can't. So how are thayt goig to get FTTP?

The Partner had FTTP for a around 18 months now, but it took some instaling, they had to get a more powerful drill and longer drill bit to go through the wwall and even then it took some doing. Saying thta it took a fiar buit to get though the wall of my living room and i live in a normal brick house.

Openreach is regulated, legally separated and supervised already.

they are suppose to be, but sometimes I do wonder.

If you dig into the finances you'll find Openreach and BT are pretty dependent - good luck finding someone to take that on outside of BT with the liabilities it has.

I know it is a bit late now since we do have more compitition, but I BT should nebver havebeen privitised in the first place.

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

What is the opposite of an Openreach fanboy? just asking for a friend in Hereford who absolutely hates Openreach although his preferred full fibre provider Zzoomm has proven to be less reliable than Openreach.

I will try these things, just like I did when I went to wireless broadband, considering I did even want to go onto FTTP in the first place, It is a miracle I changed. Seems to fine now, so maybe a few gremlins in the works, lets hope so and when they do the new backhual that will make things more reliable.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

BT should nebver havebeen privitised in the first place.

Internet connectivity in the hands of the GPO? Doesn't bear even thinking about