There was a change in policy from Openreach in the last year or so , estates built in the 1960’s through to the 1980’s were DIG and the FTTP upgrade was to provide a toby box outside each dwelling, this has an advantage of being cost effective from a civils point of view ( one very large and expensive visit to an area picking up all addresses ) but has the disadvantage of providing access to properties that may never take up FTTP ( currently around 30% so in effect if a scheme were £100k , £70k of that expenditure is not showing any return in the short term ) and a second disadvantage is OR have made life much easier for the competition, to the extent that the 70% of properties that shun the OR offer may wait and sign up with the competitors when they turn up , and OR never get the benefit of that new infrastructure apart from a peppercorn ‘rent’ , that’s assuming the Alt Net ever acknowledges they have used this new infrastructure in the first place , and don’t just squat in that new part of the OR network , short of following the Alt Net around, it relies on the Alt Nets honesty, we may have a differing view on their integrity,

Anyway the policy has changed , CBT’s provided to the footway boxes only , the ‘final’ excavation to the property only done if and when an order is received, and because its pointless in these cases to interrupt the duct run with an unnecessary toby box, the duct is continuous from box to house , the advantages are obviously the civils spend has an immediate return, and the competition can’t get in first , disadvantage is you may return time and again to the same area in a piecemeal fashion and that will be ultimately more expensive should universal take up ever be achieved .

There is always the chance that the policy changes again

Edited by Iniltous (Sun 07-Jul-24 11:54:06)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

There was a change in policy from Openreach in the last year or so , estates built in the 1960’s through to the 1980’s were DIG and the FTTP upgrade was to provide a toby box outside each dwelling, this has an advantage of being cost effective from a civils point of view ( one very large and expensive visit to an area picking up all addresses ) but has the disadvantage of providing access to properties that may never take up FTTP ( currently around 30% so in effect if a scheme were £100k , £70k of that expenditure is not showing any return in the short term ) and a second disadvantage is OR have made life much easier for the competition, to the extent that the 70% of properties that shun the OR offer may wait and sign up with the competitors when they turn up , and OR never get the benefit of that new infrastructure apart from a peppercorn ‘rent’ , that’s assuming the Alt Net ever acknowledges they have used this new infrastructure in the first place , and don’t just use squat in that new part of the OR network , short of following the Alt Net around, it relies on the Alt Nets honesty, we may have a differing view on their integrity,

Anyway the policy has changed , CBT’s provided to the footway boxes only , the ‘final’ excavation to the property only done if and when an order is received, and because its pointless in these cases to interrupt the duct run with an unnecessary toby box, the duct is continuous from box to house , the advantages are obviously the civils spend has an immediate return, and the competition can’t get in first , disadvantage is you may return time and again to the same area in a piecemeal fashion and that will be ultimately more expensive should universal take up ever be achieved .

There is always the chance that the policy changes again

Is there any literature on BT/BT Openreach's website - that you can link to (about this change in policy) that says anything about the ducting being installed from the BT manhole all the way to the external premises wall and not using Tobyboxes?

No , OR’s policy is no one’s business but their own , and from the ISP point of view it’s immaterial , OR show availability, the ISP, should they order service for a customer don’t care what method will be used , the rest is between the customer and the Openreach representative, obviously there will be cases where the ISP takes an order , the consumer once faced with the reality of providing service ( for example, the need to take up a portion of a newly installed and expensive driveway ) send OR away and cancel with the ISP , as they consider the upheaval not worth it .

OR don’t force a customer into accepting something they don’t want , they also don’t consider fanciful alternatives the consumer may suggest .

TBH , a toby box installed in advance , leaving only the customers frontage to excavate, and excavation from the appropriate footway box along a portion of the footpath ( that previously would have been excavated to provide the Toby box ) directly to the house wall is not really much of a change in process as far as the end user is concerned , but has significant initial savings for OR , in some instances where the jointbox is directly in front of the property ordering service the actual difference in one policy to the other is tiny.

Edited by Iniltous (Sun 07-Jul-24 11:50:22)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

No , OR’s policy is no one’s business but their own , and from the ISP point of view it’s immaterial , OR show availability, the ISP, should they order service for a customer don’t care what method will be used , the rest is between the customer and the Openreach representative, obviously there will be cases where the ISP takes an order , the consumer once faced with the reality of providing service ( for example, the need to take up a portion of a newly installed and expensive driveway ) send OR away and cancel with the ISP , as they consider the upheaval not worth it .

OR don’t force a customer into accepting something they don’t want , they also don’t consider fanciful alternatives the consumer may suggest .

TBH , a toby box installed in advance , leaving only the customers frontage to excavate, and excavation from the appropriate footway box along a portion of the footpath ( that previously would have been excavated to provide the Toby box ) directly to the house wall is not really much of a change in process as far as the end user is concerned , but has significant initial savings for OR , in some instances where the jointbox is directly in front of the property ordering service the actual difference in one policy to the other is tiny.

Where did you learn of this change in policy then?

If memory serves correctly probably around 15-20 months ago ,but it’s something that shouldn’t concern any potential consumer , any subsequent policy changes will no longer be known to myself, so I can’t state with 100% certainty that the policy hasn’t changed in the last 9 months , but I suspect it hasn’t, in fact the previous policy was always ( in my opinion ) counterproductive.

The obvious acid test is , if living in an address that is served by Openreach copper underground , but isn’t ducted , and Openreach FTTP is now available, and there hasn’t been recent , large scale excavation to provide toby boxes outside every property , then should an individual order service a new duct will be provided from the appropriate jointbox that houses the allocated CBT directly to the house wall , including a Toby box in this scenario is pointless as it achieves nothing useful, but as stated , in a case like yours , if some cable on wall exists that may be copied with the FTTP installation.

Policy is duct end to end,( jointbox or Toby box ) but there will always be variations , some because of the customer preference and some to make the civils operatives life easier.

Edited by Iniltous (Sun 07-Jul-24 12:12:27)